The Death and Return of the Author

Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida

Sen Burke
dinbur!h "niversity #ress
Contents
#reface to Second dition
viii
#rolo!ue$ The Deaths of #aul de %an
&
'ntroduction$ A #rehistory of the Death of the Author
(
&) The Birth of the Reader
*+
Authorshi, and A,otheosis
**
From -ork to .ife
*/
The 0Founders of .an!ua!es0
11
%imesis and the Author
2&
Autobio!ra,hies
31
*) The Author and the Death of %an
4*
Co!ito and the Birth of %an
44
The Founder of Futurity
/(
-hat 5and -ho6 is an Author7
(8
Alle!ories of %isreadin!
82
Transcendental .ures$ .acan and the %astery of .an!ua!e
88
Subjectivities
&+3
1) %isread 'ntentions
&&4
Authors of Absence
&&/
9ors:Te;te
&*1
A 9istory of Silence
&*(
Doublin! the Te;t$ 'ntention and its <ther
&1(
The %yth of -ritin!
&3+
Readin! and 5Self:6 -ritin!
&4/
Conclusion$ Critic and Author
&/+
Critic and Author7
&/4
%isrece,tions$ #henomenolo!y into Deconstruction
&(+
The =host in the %achine$ Authorial 'nscri,tion and the .imits of Theory
&(/
,ilo!ue
&8*
Technolo!y and the #olitics of Readin!
&8*
09alf Dust, 9alf Deity0$ The %iddle -ay of Situated Authorshi,
*+&
>otes
*+4
Biblio!ra,hy
*1(
'nde;
*28
#reface to Second dition
Akaky Akakievich, the little clerk made immortal by =o!ol, returns from the dead to haunt the
!overnment de,artment by ?hich he has been humiliated) Akaky had no sooner invested his life0s
savin!s in a ne? overcoat than he ?as robbed of it by a !an! of thieves) Subjected to further
scorn ?ithin his de,artment, and treated ?ith contem,t by an 'm,ortant #erson in his efforts to
recover the stolen overcoat, Akaky succumbed to a fever and died) Seemin! to undo the
institutional death to ?hich his livin! body had been condemned, the clerk0s literal death allo?s
him to assert the si!nificance of a uni@ue e;istence) The last act of Akaky0s !hostly life is to tear
the 'm,ortant #erson0s overcoat from his back$ chastened, the latter learns to res,ect ,eo,le in
their ri!htful sin!ularity)
Reduced to ,arable, this story indicates the mi;ture of comedy, ,athos and hi!h seriousness ?ith
?hich the death of the author has needed to be treated) 't also ,oints to the ever:ja!!ed
intersections bet?een institutional and e;istential mortality) 'n endin! the first edition of this book
?ith the ima!e of a hauntin!, ' su!!ested that the return criticism invariably makes to the author
must also be ackno?led!ed in ,rinci,le) asy to reco!nise, thou!h, the duty of formulatin! such a
return is @uite another char!e) 't has ri!htly been commented of this book that, ?hile a !ood case
is made a!ainst the death of the author, ,ositive alternatives are absent) 'f a return to the author
?as to be made, it ?as first necessary to sho? that such a return ?as justified) This task took an
entire book) A ,ositive ,ro!rammeAa theory of authorshi, ,erha,s A could only be distilled from
many books by many authors or theorists) That said, ' ?ill briefly sketch the main issues that any
such ,ro!ramme ?ould confront)
'mmensely valuable ?ork is current in the areas of co,yri!ht, intellectual o?nershi,, chan!in!
historical conce,tions of authorshi,, the ,olitics of authorshi, in relation to ,articular eras,
cultures and social confi!urations) As a centre of controversy, authorshi, is indeed becomin! an
inde;ed item in the literary and cultural encyclo,edia rather than the shortfall of theoretical,
,olitical or historicist ,ro!rammes) Further ?ork mi!ht also be attem,ted on the ethics of
authorshi,, the @uestion of le!acy and the contractual nature of the si!nature) Com,arative
studies of theolo!ical, ,hiloso,hical, scientific and literary authorshi, could be conducted ?ith
considerable !ains to our understandin! of the relation bet?een human a!ency and kno?led!e)
Research of this cast ?ould clarify the field of authorshi, in terms of the author:function, but an
area of considerable ,hiloso,hical and inter,retative difficulty ?ould remain to be addressed) This
issueA?hich ' touch u,on in the section 0Subjectivities0 and at the close of the 0,ilo!ue0Ais the
need to arrive at a model of situated subjectivity) -e are a lon! ?ay off any such model, but the
s,ectre of the inconceivable should not deter us from its adventure)
The main ar!ument of this book remains unaltered) ' have added a section on Derrida0s readin!
of #lato 50The %yth of -ritin!06 and an e,ilo!ue ?hich revie?s recent technolo!ical ar!uments
?hilst advocatin! an embodied sense of authorshi,) A second edition also seemed to ,rovide a
!ood o,,ortunity to s,eak more candidly about the !ro?in! breach bet?een academic literary
criticism and broad intellectual culture) This breach is marked by a 0,olitics0 of theory ?hich seems
to have very little to do ?ith ,olitics in anythin! like a 0real ?orld0) The death of the author marks a
si!nificant ,oint in this melancholy retreat) .ookin! back, it seems that an institutional affair of
self:re!ulation 5im,ersonalist readin!6 ?as all alon! mas@ueradin! as a dark truth of te;tual
ontolo!y 5the death of the author6) -hen one also takes into account the sheer
incom,rehensibility of 0the death of the author0 to even the finest minds outside the institution, it is
clear that the conce,t functioned to kee, the non:academic at bay$ thereby, one more obstacle to
the re:emer!ence of a culture of letters ?as ,ut in ,lace) 't ?as from an im,atience ?ith this
insularity that The Death and Return of the Author emer!ed) Attentive readers of the subte;t of
this ?ork ?ill also notice that this im,atience is not turned to?ard the three 0subjects0 of this book
Astron! ,oets of the a!e as they areAbut a!ainst an An!lo:American critical institution ?hich
has needed ar!uments from authority in the deconstruction of authority)
A revie?er has noted that this is an im,ersonal ?ork) #erha,s there is some inconsistency here,
but a ,ersonal defence of authorshi, ?ould not be taken seriouslyA,articularly comin! from one
?ho is not an author)
'n the realm of ackno?led!ements, ?here the ,ersonal is ,ermissible, if not the ,olitical, ' ?ould
like to record the history of my debts in ?ritin! this ?ork)
The first edition ?as conceived, researched and ?ritten bet?een &8(4 and &8(8, ?ith certain
re?ritin!s and additions in &88&) For t?o years, ' ?as the reci,ient of a British Academy State
Studentshi, for ?hich ' remain very !rateful)
Circumstances dictated that ' ?rote this ?ork in almost com,lete academic isolation, and so '
count myself very lucky to have been in re!ular contact ?ith Cairns Crai!) The insi!ht and
intelli!ence ?hich he sho?ed in su,ervisin! this ?ork continue to sur,rise me today) Also, '
should like to thank Randall Stevenson, Faith #ullin, Alistair Fo?ler and Sandra Bem,) From my
home to?n, it !ives me ,leasure to ackno?led!e Tim #etersen, my brother Bevin, my sister
Tracey and friends at the =o?er 9otel, Cardiff) ' ?ould also like to thank TCiona Carey, Aislin!
Roche, Dohn Carter, #atrick %a!uire and Timothy #arry) %ost of all, ' ?ant to ackno?led!e the
unstintin! su,,ort ' received from my ,arents, Dohn and Dune Burke)
-ith re!ard to this second edition, ' ?ould like to thank Robin Di;, %ichael <0>eill, Bert >utter,
Fabio Cleto, Charles %artindale and es,ecially C) D) Ro?e, andAin ?hat feels like an act of
second nature : #atricia -au!h ?hose !race and intelli!ence also bri!hten ?orlds far beyond the
Academy)
#rolo!ue$ The Deaths of #aul de %an
' am not !iven to retros,ective self:e;amination and mercifully for!et ?hat ' have ?ritten ?ith the
same alacrity ' for!et bad moviesAalthou!h as ?ith bad movies, certain scenes or ,hrases return
at times to embarrass and haunt me like a !uilty conscience) -hen one ima!ines to have felt the
e;hilaration of rene?al one is certainly the last to kno? ?hether such a chan!e actually took
,lace or ?hether one is just restatin!, in a sli!htly different mode, earlier and unresolved
obsessions ) ) ) Thus seein! a distant se!ment of one0s ,ast resurrected !ives one a sli!htly
uncanny feelin! of re,etition)
#aul de %an, >e? 9aven, &8(1 &
.ate in &8(/, a short article run by the >e? Eork Times under the title 0Eale Scholar0s Articles
Found in >aFi #a,er0 set in motion a ,rocess of re:evaluation not only of #aul de %an0s career as
a theorist but of the deconstructive movement in ?hose name he ?orked, and of the ethics of
detachin! the te;t from its ?riter) At a time ?hen critical theory thou!ht to have dis,ensed ?ith
the idea of authorshi,, the ,osthumous revelation of de %an0s ?artime ?ritin!s brou!ht the author
back to centre sta!e) For critical theorists themselves, all of ?hom o?e a debt of influence to de
%an and some the debt of friendshi,, the entire affair has unfolded like a ni!htmare) And the
ni!htmare in this case, as so often, is history, a history in ?hich, bet?een &82+ and &82*, a
youn! intellectual ,ublished &/+ articles in the collaborationist Bel!ian ne?s,a,er .e Soir, a
certain number of ?hich articles e;,ress anti:Semitic and ,ro:>aFi sentiments)* 't is also the
history of the most a,,allin! events, events in ?hich #aul de %an himself ,layed no active role
beyond his journalistic collaborationism, and of a radical movement in literary studies to ?hich the
breadth of his be@ueathment has yet to be assessed)
De %an0s life has no? been scrutinised, and the ,icture that emer!es is of an e;traordinarily
com,le; and contradictory individual) 1 A man of !reat modesty and kindness ?ho ?as also
ca,able of considerable du,licity in both his ,rivate and ,ublic lives, de %an could at the same
time sho? sincere sym,athy to the ,li!ht of individual De?s in occu,ied Bel!ium, and ,en articles
condemnin! De?ish literature as a decadence the -est could ?ell do ?ithout) De %an0s ,ost:?ar
reconstruction of himself also unfolds accordin! to similar ,atterns of moral ambivalence) <n the
one hand, he ?as an unim,eachable teacher and academic collea!ue, on the other, a de facto
bi!amist ?ho maintained fundamentally dishonest dealin!s ?ith his ?artime and ,ost:?artime
families) .ike most fi!ures ?ho have led a double life, #aul de %an0s bio!ra,hy o,ens to shar,ly
contrastin! inter,retations)
These eni!mas are dee,ened still further by the theoretical ,ositions he took u, on authorshi,)
#erha,s ironically, ,erha,s deliberately, de %an had al?ays denied that the ?riter0s life in any
?ay bore u,on the inter,retation of his or her ?ork) 'n the first ,hase of his career as a literary
theorist, de %an had ado,ted a ri!orous ,henomenolo!ical ,icture of authorshi, ?hereby the self
?as entirely em,tied of any bio!ra,hical content in the constitution of a transcendental
subjectivity ?ith no ,ersonal history or em,irical concerns) .atterly, as a deconstructionist, he had
rejected author:centred criticism in a different mode, affirmin! that there is no stable subject of
?ritin! in any !uise, be it transcendental or em,irical) 'n both ,hases of his career, the
bio!ra,hical subject is entirely eliminated$ an author0s ,ersonality and life history disa,,ear
irretrievably in the te;tual machine)
>ot sur,risin!ly, since his .e Soir articles have come to li!ht, many commentators have seen
factors beyond those of te;tual e,istemolo!y ur!in! this fli!ht from the self) De %an0s denial of
bio!ra,hy, his ideas of autobio!ra,hy as de:facement, have come to be seen not as disinterested
theoretical statements, but as sinister and meticulous acts of self:,rotection, by ?hich he sou!ht
to 5a6void his historical self) The attem,t to efface and deface the ?riter in his theoretical ,rose is
seen as a ?ay of detachin! the #aul de %an of Eale ?ho ?rote Blindness and 'nsi!ht and
Alle!ories of %isreadin! from the #aul de %an of occu,ied Bel!ium ?ho also ,ut his name to a
number of collaborationist articles) Such an inter,retation allies itself ?ith de %an0s te;tualisation
of history in !eneral, ?ith the al?ays rash and no? infamous o,inions he issued in the essay
0.iterary 9istory and .iterary %odernity0$ 0the bases for historical kno?led!e are not em,irical facts
but ?ritten te;ts, even if these te;ts mas@uerade in the !uise of ?ars or revolutions)0 2
The .e Soir articles have no? ,ut into ,lay their o?n history, and the retros,ective self:
e;amination0 de %an ,rofesses forei!n to his nature has been ,ractised on his behalf) -hat de
%an mi!ht mercifully for!et0, his le!acy ?ill ceaselessly and mercilessly recall in order to make
sense of this early moment in his career, to ar!ue its ,ertinence to his ?ork as a ?hole, and to
determine ?hether his subse@uent career as a literary theorist is to be read in ,atterns of
inde,endence, further cul,ability or e;,iation) For some, the ?artime ?ritin!s are to be
inter,reted as virtually com,licitous ?ith the deconstruction he and others have ,ractised) A
movement, so the ar!ument runs, ?hich avoids the subjective and the ethical has no defences
a!ainst la,sin! into totalitarian habits of thou!ht, and at least one commentator has !one so far
as to ar!ue that the com,le; ?ork of deconstruction serves to veil an im,licitly >ational Socialist
ethos)3 For othersAmainly, but by no means e;clusively, luminaries of the deconstructive
movementAthe ?artime ?ritin!s are seen as a lamentable aberration in de %an0s thou!ht, one
?hich his subse@uent ?ork did its best, on an im,licit level, to retract and rectify) <thers still offer
no miti!ation for the ?artime ?ritin!s but sto, short of e;tendin! their jud!ement to cover de
%an0s ?ork as conce,tual theoretician and ,hiloso,her of lan!ua!e)4
'n the e,i!ra,h ?hich o,ens this ,rolo!ue 5in many ?ays also an e,ita,h, lines ?ritten in the year
of his deathA&8(1Aand ,ossibly in the kno?led!e of cancer6 de %an antici,ates all the terms by
?hich this debate has been conducted) <stensibly he is reflectin! on the volume of essays datin!
from the mid:&83+s ?hich have been collected as Blindness and 'nsi!ht) 'f ?e read this ,assa!e
a!ainst its bio!ra,hical back!round, ho?ever, and take these statements as a secreted reflection
on his .e Soir articles, de %an cuts a sinister fi!ure indeedAa ,u,,eteer ,uttin! in ,lace all the
strin!s of his le!acy, an e;ecutor to his o?n dark codicil) The 0certain scenes0 by ?hich he is
haunted may ?ell be the harro?in! foota!e ?e have of the holocaust, or they may be te;tual
scenes, 0,hrases0 such as$ 0one sees that a solution of the De?ish ,roblem that ?ould aim at the
creation of a De?ish colony isolated from uro,e ?ould not entail, for the literary life of the -est,
de,lorable conse@uences) The latter ?ould lose, in all, a fe? ,ersonalities of mediocre value and
?ould continue, as in the ,ast, to develo, accordin! to its !reat evolutive la?s)0/
The full e;tent of his embarrassment, his hauntedness, his 0!uilty conscience0 ?ill ever be
unkno?n to us, thou!h the majority of commentators discern a fundamental unease in his later
?ork, the @uestion bein! ?hether this unease results from a !enuine trial of conscience, or an
an;iety test his historical secret betray itself) The 0e;hilaration of rene?al0 is am,ly evident in the
,rincely meditations he ,roduced on lan!ua!e and literature from the &83+s u, to his death in
&8(2) -hether, thou!h, 0such a chan!e actually took ,lace0, or ?hether he is 0just restatin!, in a
sli!htly different mode, earlier and unresolved obsessions0 is the central @uestion that has been
debated ?ith such ur!ency throu!hout the literary establishment in its journalistic and academic
media)
-ithout ?ishin! to add to, to neutralise or to e;,loit the ethical and moral @uestions raised by the
te;ts of this early #aul de %an, ?e mi!ht note ho? the res,onse to his ?artime ?ritin!s, both in
their ,rosecutory and miti!atory manifestations, disinter many of the loci of traditional author:
centred criticism) Si; cardinal intersections of author and te;t a,,ear and rea,,ear throu!hout
this debate)
&) 'ntention) Did the youn! de %an mean ?hat he said7 Did he say ?hat he meant7 Are the
intentions e;,ressed in his early articles carried throu!h to join the intentions of his later ?ork7
Broadly s,eakin!, those ?ho take the vie? that de %an is cul,able in the e;treme ?ould ans?er
0yes0 to these @uestions, those ?ho defend ?ould say 0no0, that it ?as the ?ork of a youn! man
borne alon! by a historical tide ?hose sava!e shores he could never have foreseen) <n both
sidesAthat of a lar!ely anti:intentionalist deconstruction on the one hand, and a ,ro:intentionalist
conte;tualism on the otherAit is assumed that ?hat he meant matters, that ?hat he meant
means somethin! to us, and that his later ?ork is !overned by !ood or bad intentions in res,ect
of these collaborationist articles)
*) Author:ity) As far as this debate is concerned, the fact that de %an became an authority ?ithin
literary theory and a certain ,hiloso,hy of lan!ua!e means that it matters ?hat he said, ?herever
and ?hatever, at ?hatever sta!e of adult develo,ment, and in ?hatever circumstances) 't is this
authority that commends these te;ts so ur!ently to our attention over and above the countless
other, more relentless and rabid collaborationist journalism of the time) Also the fact that de %an,
like 9eide!!er, ?as a ,hiloso,her:author inclines many commentators to vie? his association
?ith >ational Socialist ideolo!y as havin! more ,ernicious ramifications than that of other non:
discursive cultural fi!ures such as musicians, chess !randmasters and so on) 1) Bio!ra,hy) The
im,ortance of bio!ra,hical conte;ts to this debate !oes ?ithout sayin!) That he ?as youn! 5in his
early t?enties6 ?hen he ?rote for .e Soir, that he had a child and its mother to su,,ort, that he
?as ne,he? and intellectual ?ard to 9enri de %an 5a socialist minister in the Bel!ian !overnment
and thereafter a collaborator6, that #aul de %an ?as not a member of the >aFi ,arty 5and, for the
,rosecution, that he ?as not a member of any resistance or!anisation6, that de %an ?as hitherto
in ,olitics, in conversation, in society, a man in ?hom not the sli!htest traces of anti:Semitism or
totalitarian ,olitics could be discernedAcountless bio!ra,hical factors such as these are
,rivile!ed ?hether offered u, in e;onerative or incriminatory conte;ts)
2) Accountability) That de %an must be held to account for ?hat he had ?ritten is acce,ted by all
,arties to this controversy) <n this issue, theory seems to abandon or sus,end the idea that the
author is a mere fiction or trace of lan!ua!e, for if authorshi, ?ere indeed a te;tual illusion, there
?ould be no char!e to ans?er beyond that of remindin! the ?orld that in the reality of te;t 0#aul
de %an0 si!ns and si!nifies nothin!) The fact is that his fello? theorists have defended de %an as
a ,erson and often ?ith considerable di!nity and ,assion) So much in itself confirms that, firstly,
the si!nature 0#aul de %an0 is somethin! !reatly in e;cess of a te;tual effect and secondly, his
si!nature ties de %an ethically and e;istentially to the te;ts he has ?ritten)
3) <euvre) The e;istence of a de %anian cor,us is not for a minute called into @uestion ?ithin this
debate) The three main cate!ories of res,onse to the ?artime ?ritin!s are$ the inter,retation of
the entire oeuvre as some form of continuation of the sentiments e;,ressed in this early ?ork, a
readin! that sees the .e Soir articles as the e;,ression of the mature de %anian ,hiloso,hy in
statu nascendiG the inter,retation of the ,ost:?ar de %anian ?ork as an attem,t to redress and
retract the ideolo!y reflected in his ?artime journalism and the dissociation of the ?artime ?ritin!s
from the de %anian oeuvre) ( The first t?o ,ositions acce,t the interrelationshi, bet?een de
%an0s ?artime and ,ost:?ar ?ritin!, the former inter,retin! it as some form of continuous fi!ure,
the latter accordin! to a corrective ,attern) The third ,osition also acce,ts the conce,t of the
oeuvre, but se,arates an inessential juvenilia from an essential and mature canon) The debate
thus differs only in the !ravity of its themes from those ?e have ?itnessed concernin! the
relationshi, of an author0s fled!lin! te;ts to those of his or her mature canon)
4) Autobio!ra,hy) The debate ,ostulates at its centre a conce,t of de %an0s theoretical ,rose
?hich sees it not as direct autobio!ra,hical e;,ression but as, on the one hand, autobio!ra,hical
su,,ression, and, on the other, as an elli,tical and indirect form of confession) De %an0s ,ost:?ar
te;ts are read either as the ?orkAautobio!ra,hical in s,ite of itselfAof a man ?ho is attem,tin!
on a theoretical level to obliterate his o?n historyG or, for his defenders, as a dis!uised
confessional narrative, the attem,t by de %an to construct a method of ri!orous te;tual criti@ue
that ?ould !uard a!ainst the ideolo!ical mystification to ?hich he had succumbed in his youth) 'n
both modes, the de %anian te;t is seen to be autobio!ra,hical in essence, a te;t ?hich
!enerated an entire ,hiloso,hy of lan!ua!e and of the absence of subjectivity in order to kee, its
secret or to atone for its ,revious errors)
The de %anian le!acy dra?s to!ether so many of the ,oints ?ith ?hich ?e ?ill be concerned
here) 8 %ost si!nificantly, it sho?s ho? the ,rinci,le of the author most ,o?erfully reasserts itself
?hen it is thou!ht absent) This reassertion takes ,lace not only ?ithin the debate in literary
studies that the affair of de %an has ,rovoked, but also in the conte;t of de %an0s bio!ra,hical
relationshi, to his o?n theoretical ?ork) 'n the latter case, de %an0s life and ?ork fuse in the very
fi!ure that su,,osedly sets them a,art) -hilst he theorised about the disen!a!ement of an author
from his ?ork in the constitution of an anonymous literary selfhood that leaves the ,ersonal self in
its ?ake, his o?n life unfolded accordin! to similar ,atterns) Theoretical articulations of the void of
,ersonality find a constant analo!ue in de %an0s voidin! of his ,ersonal history) Autobio!ra,hy as
de:facement becomes de:facement as autobio!ra,hy, a cancellation of the self that is self:?illed
and mirrored in the life of the self:cancellin! subjectG te;t and author are united under the si!ns of
their disunion)&+
'n an essay entitled 0The Sublimation of the Self, de %an ?rote$ 0Because it im,lies a for!ettin! of
the ,ersonal self for a transcendental ty,e of self that s,eaks in the ?ork, the act of criticism can
ac@uire e;em,lary value)0&& By ?ay of an irony to ?hich he himself contributed 5,erha,s even
antici,ated6, it ?as only ?hen his ,ersonal e;istence had run its course that his ,ersonal self
returned to haunt the austere and anonymous subject he left behind in his ?ork) 'n his deaths, the
,uttin!:to:death of a ,ast self, his o?n biolo!ical death, and the death of the ?riter he announced
in his ?ritin!, #aul de %an has come to life as a bio!ra,hical fi!ure ?ith a chillin! and tra!ic
intensity) As Derrida himself says$
9e, himself, he is dead, and yet, throu!h the s,ecters of memory and of the te;t, he lives amon!
us and, as one says in French, il nous re!ardeC9$&3&H he looks at us, but also he is our
concern, ?e have concerns re!ardin! him more than ever ?ithout his bein! here) 9e s,eaks 5to6
us amon! us) 9e makes us or allo?s us to s,eak of us, to s,eak to us) 9e s,eaks 5to6 us I'l nous
,arleJ) &*
A disembodied voice, a voice that s,eaks stran!ely to us no? throu!h the fissures of seemin!ly
im,ersonal and im,erturbable theoretical ,rose) A voice that cannot be ke,t silent in death) And a
voice that, ?e shall ar!ue, can still less be @uieted by literary theory)
This voice, the voice of #aul de %an, is also the voice of authorshi, itself as ?e shall trace its
disa,,earances and returns in modern theories of the te;t)&1 9enceforth ' ?ill make only
occasional recourse to #aul de %an and, there, to ar!uably the most !ifted literary theorist of his
!enerationG and as often as not to contest his ideas on authorshi, ?hich, as for all the theorists
discussed here, is an area of blindness ?ithin his ?ork) For ?ith Barthes, Foucault and Derrida,
albeit less dramatically, the authorial subject returns, the 5auto6 bio!ra,hical disru,ts, enhances
and dis,laces as,ects of their ?ork, a return ?hich ' shall ar!ue takes ,lace almost
instantaneously ?ith the declaration of authorial de,arture)
As befits the cyclical nature of this ,roject ?e have be!un, so to s,eak, at the endG ?ith a return
ofKto the author in critical theory) Both sides of this return ?ill concern us here$ the return of the
author is as it inevitably and im,licitly occurs in the ,ractice of anti:authorial criticismG and the
return to the author that ,oststructuralism in !eneral has yet to make at the level of theory des,ite
its failure to circumvent subjectivity at the level of its readin!s) -hat follo?s then, under the rubric
of the death of the author, is at one and the same time a statement of the return of the author, a
return that takes ,lace in accordance ?ith the !uidin! ,rinci,le of this analysisAthat the conce,t
of the author is never more alive than ?hen ,ronounced dead) 'ntroduction$
A #rehistory of the Death of the Author
-hen lookin! at the history of modern thou!ht it is all too easy to be seduced by linear ,atterns of
develo,ment constructed after the event) <ne such ,ath is cleared by Roland Barthes ?hen he
describes the ori!ins of modern anti:authorialism as stretchin! from %allarmL, throu!h MalLry,
#roust and the Surrealists) & Be!uilin! and fastidious as it may be, this linea!e is ,al,ably false)
<f the e;am,les cited, #roust, thou!h he o,,osed conventional bio!ra,hicist criticism, never
declared anythin! remotely resemblin! the death of the author, MalLry as often as not militated in
favour of authorial control over and a!ainst the romantic notion of ins,iration, and Surrealism,
?hilst it may have ,ersuaded a fe? ?riters to e;,eriment ?ith automatic ?ritin!, has never had a
clear and unmediated im,act u,on critical theory)* very ?riter, as Dor!e .uis Bor!es says,
creates his o?n ,recursors 5an ele!ant ?ay of sayin!, amon!st other thin!s, that all intellectual
history is ,ost factum6, and in this case Barthes is @uite sim,ly coverin! over a history of more
humble ,redecessors ?ith an au!ust line of =allic influences)1 'ndeed, of the ,redecessors cited,
only %allarmL has any ,lace as a harbin!er of authorial demise)
>ot only Barthes, but Foucault and Derrida have also sho?n themselves ea!er to acce,t
%allarmL as a ,recursor, and if ?e look at the ,oet0s most famous remarks on com,ositional
aesthetics, it is easy to see ho? he ,refi!ures some of the central themes evoked by anti:
authorial discourses$
The ,ure ?ork im,lies the disa,,earance of the ,oet:s,eaker ?ho yields the initiative to ?ords
animated by the ine@uality revealed in their collision ?ith one anotherG they illuminate one another
and ,ass like a trail of fire over ,recious stones, re,lacin! the audible breathin! of earlier lyrical
verse or the e;alted ,erson
ality ?hich directed the ,hrase)
The structure of a book of verse must arise throu!hout from internal necessityAin this ?ay both
chance and the author ?ill be e;cluded ) ) ) some symmetry, ?hich ?ill arise from the relation of
lines ?ithin the ,oem and ,oems ?ithin the volume, ?ill reach out beyond the volume to other
,oets ?ho ?ill themselves inscribe on s,iritual s,ace the e;,andin! ,ara,h of !enius,
anonymous and ,erfect like a ?ork of art) 2
The disa,,earance of the ?riter, the autonomy of ?ritin!, the be!innin! of Lcriture in an act of
te;tual dis,ossession, the ,o?er of lan!ua!e to or!anise and orchestrate itself ?ithout any
subjective intervention ?hatsoever, the notion of the interte;tualisin! of all literatureAall these
,roto:theoretical themes are laid out in the s,arest form by this ,assa!e) -ith %allarmL, the
sublime ori!in of literature ?hich the romantics sou!ht alternately in ima!ination, or in the %use,
is no? discovered ?ithin lan!ua!e itself) The doctrine of ins,iration de,arts from the sublimity of
divine ori!in and ado,ts its counter:sublime$ the anonymous unravellin! of ?ords on the ,urity of
a ,a!e, ?ords ?ritten in the absence of =ods, %uses and mortals) .ittle ?onder, then, that
Barthes should establish %allarmL as chief amon! the heresiarchs, or that Foucault should say$
The >ietFschean @uestion$ 0-ho is s,eakin!70, %allarmL re,lies ) ) ) by sayin! that ?hat is
s,eakin! is, in its solitude, in its fra!ile vibration, in its nothin!ness, the ?ord itself ) ) ) %allarmL
?as constantly effacin! himself from his o?n lan!ua!e, to the ,oint of not ?ishin! to fi!ure in it
e;ce,t as an e;ecutant in a ,ure ceremony of the Book in ?hich the discourse ?ould com,ose
itself) 't is @uite ,ossible that all the @uestions no? confrontin! our curiosity ) ) ) are ,resented
today in the distance that ?as never crossed bet?een >ietFsche0s @uestion and %allarmL0s
re,ly)3
As Foucault himself kno?s as ?ell as anyone, ho?ever, no historical ,roblematic can be
contained ?ithin such delicate frames) Beyond the obvious contradiction of establishin! %allarmL
as the author, as it ?ere, of the author0s disa,,earanceAa foundin! father of the death of the
fatherAhistoricisin! of this kind is at best mytho,oeic, and at ?orst, ,erverse) For elo@uent and
concise as such a ,icture is, it is also mystificatory in that the theoretical bases of the movement
a!ainst the subject of ?ritin! are obscured and dis,laced) %allarmL0s discourse does not situate
itself at the o,enin! of literary theory as ?e kno? it, but re,resents a tenebrous culmination of the
romantic doctrine of ins,iration) Furthermore, %allarmL is not tenderin! a theoretical or even
eidetic statement about ?ritin!) Rather he is evokin!, on the one hand, a certain com,ositional
mood ?hereby the ,oet attem,ts to em,ty himself of ,ersonal concerns before the ,oetic act
and, on the other, the aesthetic ?ill:to:im,ersonality such as ?as to re:emer!e ?ith T)S) liot and
others early in this century) 4 An ideal of literature is adumbrated in %allarmL, but not its theory)
Recourse to %allarmL in this conte;t is of course @uite convenient in that his distance from
theory, and his distance in time from Barthes, Foucault and Derrida ensures that their ?ork ?ill
not be seen in derivative colours$ in much the same ?ay, Freud ,referred to look to the =reek
,oets rather than to the nearer and more threatenin! fi!ures of Scho,enhauer and >ietFsche as
the forebears of ,sychoanalytic theory) -hat the French ,oststructuralist a,,eal to %allarmL
shields is a more difficult and ser,entine history of influences ?hich culminated in the modern
attem,t to destroy the authorial subject)
<ne of the easier and more hos,itable theoretical ,aths leadin! to the announcement of the
death of the author travels alon! the familiar circuit by ?hich the ?ork of the Russian Formalists
,asses throu!h CFech and French structuralism to culminate in the ,oststructuralism ,ractised by
Barthes, Foucault and Derrida in the &84+s) Alon! this route, the Formalists0 reduction of the
author in the interests of establishin! a science of literature and lan!ua!e is seen to flo? virtually
undisturbed into the modern theory of literature) Such a history of develo,ments, thou!h, entirely
by,asses the enormous influence of ,henomenolo!y on French thou!ht u, to the mid:&83+s, an
influence in ?hich Barthes, Foucault and Derrida ?ere immersed in the early sta!es of their
intellectual careers)
9usserl0s reformulation of the conscious subject as the !round of kno?led!e e;erted !reatest
influence not in his native =ermany but in a French ,hiloso,hical tradition ?hich for three
centuries had lived in the shado? of Cartesianism) Faced ?ith the develo,ment of a modern
co!ito, France0s ne? !eneration of ,hiloso,hersAmost notably Dean:#aul Sartre and %aurice
%erleau:#ontyAthre? themselves into the 9usserlian te;ts and the ,henomenolo!ical revisions
of %artin 9eide!!er) For this and a number of other reasons, the classic te;ts of structuralismA
thou!h they ?ere all ?ritten in FrenchA,assed by ?ith little or no reco!nition from an intellectual
culture ?hose horiFons ?ere bound by the study of consciousness and the transcendental
,henomenolo!ical subject)
>aturally, the ,henomenolo!ical movement in France ?as by no means homo!eneous and its
various scions attest to different ,oints of de,arture) Sartre0s e;istential readin! of
,henomenolo!y took its bearin!s from 9eide!!er, ?hilst %erleau:#onty0s ?ork looked to the
classical 9usserlian formulation for its revisionary im,etus) Eet all the versions of ,henomenolo!y
that develo,ed durin! this ,eriod shared a common focus in the @uestion of subjectivity) Sartre0s
contributionA?idely considered today as retro!ressive and distortedAconsisted lar!ely in
returnin! 9eide!!er0s revision of 9usserl to a more substantial !roundin! in the 9usserlian
subject, a revision in ?hich is added a !reat em,hasis on the ideal of individual freedom)
Thou!h no? lar!ely out of favour, it ?as this e;istential readin! of ,henomenolo!y ?hich !ained
most currency durin! the &82+s lar!ely as a result of Sartre0s cultural and intellectual ascendancy
over this ,eriod, an ascendancy com,arable only to that of Moltaire some t?o centuries earlier)
As ,hiloso,her, ,lay?ri!ht, novelist, journalist and ,olitical activist, Sartre e;tended the notion of
a free subjectivity beyond ,hiloso,hy to literature and ,olitics, and ,rovided his !eneration ?ith
the model of the en!a!ed author, a ,olitically:committed ?riter ?hose ?ork and ?hose activities
maintained the ideals of ,ersonal and ,olitical freedom in all as,ects of day:to:day e;istence)
Such a model left a dee, and lastin! im,ression on Barthes, Foucault and Derrida) 'ndeed, as
Derrida has said, it is 0a model that ' have since jud!ed to be ill:fated and catastro,hic, but one '
still love) / Furthermore, the fi!ure of Sartre constituted the initial ins,iration for all three theorists
to e;,lore the ,henomenolo!ical method)
Barthes, Foucault and Derrida, thus all develo,ed as intellectuals in an environment ?ithin ?hich
the idea of the subject held the same ascendancy as lan!ua!e has occu,ied for the last @uarter
of a century) #henomenolo!ical consciousness rather than lin!uistic structures formed the basis
of their early researches) 'n Barthes this took the form of cham,ionin! the nouveau roman, a
loosely ,henomenolo!ical !enre ?hich ,rivile!ed narratorial consciousness) A statement made
by Barthes in an essay of &832 on Robbe:=rillet sho?s just ho? far he ?as at this time from
,osin! the @uestion of lan!ua!e) Robbe:=rillet0s ?ork, he ?rites, 0im,oses a uni@ue order of
,erce,tion ) ) ) 't teaches us to look at the ?orld no lon!er ?ith the eyes of a confessor, a
,hysician, or of =od ) ) ) but ?ith the eyes of a man ?alkin! in a city ?ith no other horiFon but
the s,ectacle before him, no other ,o?er than that of his o?n eyes)0 (
Derrida, for his ,art, had read voraciously in the ,henomenolo!ical tradition, tracin! the
movement back to 9usserl and from there to its roots in the 9e!elian ,henomenolo!y) Durin! the
mid:&83+s, he ?as ,re,arin! a doctoral thesis entitled 0The 'deality of the .iterary <bject in
9usserl0 ?hich like?ise took no account of ho? lan!ua!e mi!ht dis,lace or even thorou!hly
invalidate the conce,t of literary ,erce,tion) Foucault, too, found his first ,hiloso,hical directions
in ,henomenolo!y, and these three foundin! fi!ures of ,oststructuralism mi!ht ?ell have
develo,ed into the most e;citin! ,henomenolo!ical revisionists of their time ?ere it not for the
surfacin! of structural lin!uistics in French thou!ht durin! the mid:&83+s) ",on the advent of
?hat has been called the lin!uistic revolution, Barthes, Foucault and Derrida ?ere all forced to
radically re:@uestion their orientation) Derrida, in a !esture of ,recocious intellectual sincerity,
abandoned his dissertation on 9usserl to revie? ,henomenolo!y from the ,ers,ective of
lan!ua!e and literary inter,retation 5a ,roject that ?as to re:emer!e a decade later as S,eech
and #henomena86G Foucault recast his studies of madness in terms of lan!ua!eG Barthes be!an
readin! avidly in the ?ork of .Lvi:Strauss and a,,lied lin!uistic structures to numerous cultural
sites, achievin! ,articular notoriety amon!st French scholars for his structural readin! of Racinian
tra!edy)
-hat brou!ht lan!ua!e to the forefront of thou!ht at this ,articular time ?ere the landmark
,ublications of .Lvi:Strauss0s Tristes Tro,i@ues 5&8336 and Dac@ues .acan0s 0The A!ency of the
.etter in the "nconscious, <r Reason Since Freud0 5&83/6)&+ As the result of a series of historical
accidents and an embedded French resistance to lan!ua!e analysis, structural lin!uistics ?as
forced to travel the most circuitous routes in order to be readmitted to the French:s,eakin! ?orld
in ?hich it had ori!inated, just as it had also to travel by ?ay of many disci,lines 5anthro,olo!y,
,sychoanalysis, ,hiloso,hy and, to a lesser e;tent, ,olitical theory6 to discover ?hat ?ould seem
the natural home of its a,,licationsAliterary studies) The S?iss lin!uist, Ferdinand de Saussure0s
Course in =eneral .in!uistics had been ,ublished in France as early as &8&3, but only found a
rece,tive audience in Russia durin! the closin! sta!es of the Formalist movementG&& and it ?as
not until the &82+s that French thou!ht be!an to catch its first !lim,se of the resources offered by
lin!uistics for rea,,raisin! man0s relationshi, ?ith the ?orld) &*
Saussure0s no? famous insistence on the arbitrariness of the si!nAthat the relation bet?een
si!nifier and si!nified ?as based on a conventionalKdifferential rather than a natural
corres,ondenceAo,ened u, to .Lvi:Strauss and .acan seemin!ly ine;haustible ,ossibilities for
a,,lyin! lin!uistic structures to ?hat ?ere hitherto considered 0natural0 ,henomena) 'n .Lvi:
Strauss, this took the form of analysin! ,atterns of social relationshi,s accordin! to a lin!uistic
model) Binshi, structures in ,articular struck .Lvi:Strauss as a challen!in! area of en@uiry for
lin!uistic anthro,olo!y, and he detected that family members ?ere differentiated from one
another in much the same ?ay as lan!ua!e differentiates and cate!orises objects, an insi!ht
?hich led to his famous declaration that incest is 0bad !rammar0)&1 For .acan, lin!uistic research
led him to Dakobson0s no? famous distinction bet?een meta,hor and metonymy 5the substitution
of the ,art for the ?hole, i)e) the turf for horse racin!6 ?hich he ada,ted, res,ectively, to Freud0s
characterisation of the dream ,rocess as condensation and dis,lacement) This insi!ht then
allo?ed .acan to be!in his rereadin! of Freud from a lin!uistic ,ers,ective on the understandin!
that 0the unconscious is structured like a lan!ua!e)0&2
Thou!h ?orkin! in very different areas, .acan and .Lvi:Strauss had thus come to very similar
conclusions concernin! the effects of the lin!uistic revaluation on the status of the subject in
relation to kno?led!e) .Lvi:Strauss ur!ed that ,hiloso,hical and anthro,olo!ical investi!ation
move from their concerns ?ith conscious ,henomena to the study of their 0unconscious
infrastructure0,&3 just as .acan stressed that it is not man as conscious subject ?ho thinks, acts
or s,eaks, but the lin!uistic unconscious that determines his every thou!ht, action and utterance)
This 0Co,ernican revolution0 set in motion by the fore!roundin! of lin!uistic structures thre? do?n
a direct challen!e to the central and foundin! role of consciousness, ?hether re!istered in terms
of Cartesian certainty, 9usserlian ,henomenolo!y, or the doctrine of individual freedom outlined
in Sartrian e;istentialism) 'n ?hat ?as to become the 0slo!an of the decade0 for the France of the
&84+s, .Lvi:Strauss could thus declare$ 0the !oal of the human sciences is not to constitute man,
but to dissolve him)0&4
The situation of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida at this juncture in French intellectual history is
decisive) A stron! case could be made that ,oststructuralism itself could only have been born at
this crossover, in the form of a movement ?hich ?ishes to ,ush the structuralist rene?al of
lan!ua!e to?ard the eventual dissolution of both the notions of subjectivity and those of universal
structural cate!ories) &/ 'n terms of the develo,ment of the idea of the death of the author, the
effects of this ,articular historical situation are beyond doubt) arlier movements a!ainst the
author had taken the form of reactions a!ainst bio!ra,hical ,ositivism) The author ?as sim,ly to
be removed or sidelined in order to focus in >e? Criticism on 0the ?ords on the ,a!e0, in Russian
Formalism on 0the literariness of literature0, but these e;clusions remained essentially ,rovisional
and did not take the form of a ,rescri,tive or eidetic statement about discourse)
The intersection bet?een ,henomenolo!y and structuralism, ho?ever, ,roduced an iconoclastic
and far:ran!in! form of antisubjectivism) 9avin! been schooled in ,henomenolo!ical method,
and havin! seen t?o of the !reat sciences of the human subjectAanthro,olo!y and
,sychoanalysisAdis,ense ?ith the subject under a structuralist si!n, Barthes, Foucault and
Derrida ?ere not content ?ith sim,ly sidelinin! the authorial subject as in earlier formalisms) A
,henomenolo!ical trainin! had tau!ht them that the subject ?as too ,o?erful, too so,histicated a
conce,t to be sim,ly bracketedG rather subjectivity ?as somethin! to be annihilated) >or either
could they be content to see the death of the subject as somethin! a,,lyin! merely to the area of
literary studies) The death of the author must connect ?ith a !eneral death of man) At the limit,
therefore, bet?een ,henomenolo!y and structuralism the discourse of the death of the author as
?e kno? it comes into its bein!) An era of theory is under?ay in ?hich lan!ua!e is 0the destroyer
of all subject0&(Athe author of literary studies, the transcendental subject of ,hiloso,hies of
consciousness, the subject of ,olitical theory, ,sychoanalysis, anthro,olo!y)
For Barthes, Foucault and Derrida, the e;,ulsion of the subject from the s,ace of lan!ua!e is
thus seen to e;tend ri!ht across the field of the human sciences, and to call into @uestion the idea
that man can ,ro,erly ,ossess any de!ree of kno?led!e or consciousness) For should it be that
all thou!ht ,roceeds necessarily by ?ay and by virtue of lan!ua!e, then the absence of the
subject from lan!ua!e translates into the absence of the subject or consciousness from
kno?led!e) 'f kno?led!e itself, or ?hat ?e take to be kno?led!e, is entirely intradiscursive, and if,
as it is claimed, the subject has no anchora!e ?ithin discourse, then man as the subject of
kno?led!e is thorou!hly dis,laced and dislod!ed) Co!nition and consciousness arise as
intralin!uistic effects or meta,hors, by:,roducts, as it ?ere, of a lin!uistic order that has evolved
for thousands of years before any subject comes to s,eak) %an can no lon!er be conceived as
the subject of his ?orks, for to be the subject of a te;t, or of kno?led!e, is to assume a ,ost
ideally e;terior to lan!ua!e) There can thus be no such thin! as subjectivity ?hilst the subject or
authorAas has classically been the caseAis conceived as ,rior to a lan!ua!e ?hich e;ists as an
entirely trans,arent vehicle or medium for his uses, his desi!ns) As Foucault ,redicts, man as the
subject and object of his o?n kno?led!e 0is in the ,rocess of ,erishin! as the bein! of lan!ua!e
continues to shine ever bri!hter u,on our horiFon0) &8 The idea of authorial absence thereby
connects ?ith the e,istemolo!ical u,heaval in -estern thou!ht ?hich the theorists of the &84+s
believed to be under?ay in the lin!uistic decom,osition of subject:centred ,hiloso,hies) -here
,hiloso,hy and the human sciences had re!istered man, or the subject as the necessary
be!innin! and end of kno?led!e, kno?led!e and the subject are seen to be fictive emanations of
a lan!ua!e and a ?ritin! ?hich endlessly subvert all attem,ts by the human a!ent to assert any
de!ree of mastery or control over their ?orkin!s)
This movement is more than a sim,le e;tension or develo,ment of earlier literary:critical
o,,osition to the author) -hilst the >e? Critical and Russian Formalist ,rojects sou!ht to remove
the author in the interests of e;clusively literary concerns, the refusal amon!st structuralists and
,oststructuralists to strictly demarcate modes of ?ritin!, their anti:formalist insistence on a broad
field of interte;tuality ?hich the discourses of literature, ,hiloso,hy, and science traverse on an
e@ual footin!, means that the removal of the authorial subject is no lon!er to be retained sim,ly
as a ,oint of intradisci,linary methodolo!y) Furthermore, as enounced by Barthes, Foucault and
Derrida, the removal of the author is not to be seen as a strate!y, a means to?ard an end, but as
a ,rimary claim in itself) -ithin Russian Formalism and the >e? Criticism, anti:authorialism
a,,eared as a reaction to bio!ra,hical ,ositivism) 'n order to establish a coherent field of critical
study, it ?as necessary to e;tricate the literary object from the mass of bio!ra,hical and
,sycholo!ical s,eculation ?ithin ?hich it had been submer!ed in the homes,un eclecticism of
nineteenth:century criticism) Conse@uently, the @uestion of the authorAalon! ?ith that of the
e;trate;tual referent in !eneral 5history, society, the ?orld6A?as sidelined or bracketed as the
,reliminary ste, to?ard evolvin! a formal, internal and rhetorical a,,roach to the te;t) *+ The
e;clusion of the author functioned @uite sim,ly as a methodolo!ical !ambit ?ithin a system ?hich
did not ,ose the @uestions of the ori!ins and determinants of the te;t) The death or
disa,,earance of the author ?as not at issue but rather the incom,atibility of authorial cate!ories
?ith immanent analyses)
-ithin the discourse of the death of the author, ho?ever, it is not enou!h to e;clude the author
but to reco!nise that the author has al?ays been absent, that there never could be an author in
the first ,lace) Barthes, Foucault and Derrida thus take anti:authorialism to the e;treme of
,romotin! authorial e;clusion from a methodolo!ical ,rescri,tion to an ontolo!ical statement
about the very essence of discourse itself) The a,,earance of ?ritin! is a ,riori identifiable ?ith
the disa,,earance of the author$
As soon as a fact is narrated no lon!er ?ith a vie? to actin! directly on reality but intransitively,
that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very ,ractice of the symbol
itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its ori!in, the author enters into his o?n death,
?ritin! be!ins)*&
.ike?ise, Foucault claims that in fabricatin! a te;t an individual can do no more and no less than
create a s,ace into ?hich the ?ritin! subject continually disa,,ears) The 0mark of the ?riter0, he
contends, 0is reduced to nothin! more than the sin!ularity of his absenceG he must assume the
role of the dead man in the !ame of ?ritin!0)** Such contentions mark a considerable advance on
formalist ,ositions ?hich !enerally sou!ht only to remove the author in order to develo,
formularies for addressin! the te;t on an internal ,lane) -ithin modern French theory, ho?ever,
so far from functionin! as a ?orkin! methodolo!ical hy,othesis, the absence or demise of the
author is seen as 0indubitably the ,roof of ?ritin!0*1 in all its manifestations$
.eavin! aside literature itself 5such distinctions really becomin! invalid6 ) ) ) the ?hole of the
enunciation is an em,ty ,rocess, functionin! ,erfectly ?ithout there bein! any need for it to be
filled ?ith the ,ersons of the interlocutors) .in!uistically, the author is never more than the
instance ?ritin!, just as ' is nothin! other than the instance sayin! '$ lan!ua!e kno?s a 0subject0
not a 0,erson0, and this subject, em,ty outside of the very enunciation ?hich defines it, suffices to
make lan!ua!e 0hold to!ether0, suffices, that is to say, to e;haust it) *2
Statements of this castAcharacteristically of modern anti:authorialismAare not made in a
conventionally e;,ository or discursive frame?ork) -hat is ,resented is not offered as thou!h it
?ere o,en to @uestion) The reader is asked to either acce,t the truth of ?hat is bein! said as no
less than a fact of ?ritin!, or to turn back nostal!ically u,on a humanism no lon!er tenable ?ithin
this a!e of theory) And such indeed has been the !eneral ,attern of res,onses to the
annunciation of the author0s death)
<n the one hand, authorial disa,,earance has been acce,ted by structuralist and
,oststructuralist critics almost as an article of faith) Barthes, Foucault and Derrida are invoked as
thou!hAindividually or concertedlyAthey have indeed 0,roved0 that the author is absent from and
irrelevant to the te;t) As a result of French theory, it is claimed$ 0The notion of the 00self00Aso
intrinsic to An!lo:American thou!htAbecomes absurd) 't is not somethin! called the self that
s,eaks, but lan!ua!e, the unconscious, the te;tuality of the te;t)0*3 Recourse to the author is
deemed ,alaeocritical, the sanctuary of an establishment hankerin! back to an illusory innocence
of criticism before contem,orary theorists uncovered the absence of human and e;,ressive
@ualities in the literary te;t) <n the other hand, such defences as have been made of the author
commonly rest u,on a fundamentally unar!ued humanist o,,osition to the reduction of literature
to an im,ersonal ,lay of si!nification) 'n sometimes moralistic, sometimes commonsensical
tones, the idea of the death of the author is dismissed as havin! no serious claim u,on our
attention, bein! best accounted for as yet another conceit of a continental avant:!ardism ?hich
deli!hts in mystificatory ,arado;)*4
>aturally, there are a number of more tem,erate res,onses to balance these e;tremes, but even
?ithin the most com,osed ,ro: and anti:authorial discourses, there is little or no com,romise or
co!ent debate, neither side sho?in! itself ?illin! to ar!ue and justify its root ,resu,,ositions) The
,roblem of the author is thus sustained as a source of dee, controversy, but does not surface as
the site of common discussion, and the chimerical body of te;ts ?hich constitutes the discourse
of the death of the author is not ri!orously analysed or interro!ated either by its ,artisans or
detractors) The result of ?hich is that the author:@uestion has been lar!ely lost in the
,er,etuation of this divide)
'n recent times, resistance to French theory has taken on a more so,histicated and less humanist
character ?ith the emer!ence of the >e? #ra!matism) ven here, ho?ever, the broader issues
raised by authorshi, have not been debated and the ,roblem of intention has been ,ursued to
the e;clusion of other authorial cate!ories) */ Certainly it is still too early to !au!e the force 5or
lack of it6 ?ith ?hich the ,ra!matists ?ill return 5to6 the author, but in so far as they have !enerally
,resented themselves as a!ainst theory, their ?ork has tended to consolidate rather than loosen
the deadlock bet?een French theory and An!lo:Amenican criticism)*( Thus ?hen hard:line
,ra!matists declare that the theoretical enter,rise should sim,ly come to a close they are sayin!
no more of theory than theory often said of traditionAthat it is mis!uided, mystificatory, and that
the ?hole era of te;tual s,eculation it has !enerated should be forth?ith erased 5or erase itself6 in
the interests of resha,in! literary studies) The attem,t to ,ut an end to theory thus re,roduces
the same im,etuous and ahistorical rationale that sou!ht to ,ut an end to the author) >o common
discursive site is ackno?led!ed, even ,rovisionally, the articulations of theory are dismissed
?ithout so much as bein! touched u,on,*8 and once more the te;ts of the death of the author
remain closed to investi!ation, revision or criti@ue)
The aim of this ,articular ,roject and, ' ?ould ar!ue, of literary studies in !eneral, is not to re,lace
the death of the author by any 0end0 or 0death0 of theory 5if indeed any such thin! is ,ossible6, for it
is ,recisely the ideas of 0deaths0, 0ends0, 0closures0, 0e,istemolo!ical breaks0, 0final ru,tures0, etc),
that have so often barred the ?ay to meanin!ful and constructive debate in recent critical history)
-hat is ,ro,osed here, by contrast, is a close readin! of anti:authorial discourses, an in@uiry into
ho? authorial absence is elaborated as a ,oint of theory, and ho? it is ,ut into ,ractice as a
!uidin! ,rinci,le of inter,retation and critical histories)1+ <n the basis of ?hat conce,tual
structures, then, is the idea of te;tual anonymity articulated7 -hat reasons are !iven such that
?e mi!ht be led to see the disa,,earance of the ?riter as the ,recondition of discourse7 9o?
does the theme of the death of the author connect ?ith the death of subjectivity in !eneral7 'n
?hat manner is the conce,t of the author determined ?ithin current debates about intention and
re,resentation7 -hat im,lications does authorial disa,,earance have for the discourses ?ithin
?hich it is ,romul!ated7 -ho or ?hat s,eaks in the discourse of the Dead Author7 9o? can
there be readers ?ithout there bein! ?riters7 These are the @uestions ?hich ?ill concern us here,
@uestions ?hose im,ort cannot be circumvented for the fate of the author ,rescribes not only the
?ays in ?hich ?e theorise, but the ?ays in ?hich ?e read, and in ?hich ?e do or do not ?rite) -e
shall therefore o,en the te;ts in ?hich anti:authorialism receives its definitive formulations,
be!innin! ?ith the ?ork of Roland Barthes ?hose essay 0The Death of the Author0 has been the
sin!le most influential meditation on the @uestion of authorshi, in modern times)
&
The Birth of the Reader
-hy, man, he doth bestride the narro? ?orld
.ike a ColossusG and ?e ,etty men
-alk under his hu!e le!s, and ,ee, about
To find ourselves dishonourable !raves)
-illiam Shakes,eare &
%ovements ?ithout manifestos are rare, and in 0The Death of the Author0, Roland Barthes
,rovided literary theory ?ith its clearest, most uncom,romisin! statement of intent) -ritten in
&84/Aand not, as is often su,,osed, in mind of the student u,risin!A0The Death of the Author0
?as first ,ublished in France in &84()* The year of les LvLnements, ho?ever, ?as to suit the
dramatic and revolutionary nature of Barthes0s essay admirably) A little like 9e!el0s
#henomenolo!y of %ind, ?hich ?as com,osed ?ithin earshot of !unfire from the Battle of Dena,
0The Death of the Author0 has found a ,erfect settin! a!ainst the back!round of %ay:time #aris in
intellectual revolt)
For at least five years beforehand, Barthes had e;,ressed stron! reservations about the
institution of authorshi,, and in ,articular the ,ractices of auteurist criticism, that is, criticism
e;clusively fi;ed u,on the the author or auteur) -orkin! under a structuralist im,rimatur, he had
recommended in <n Racine 5&8416 that criticism move beyond the restrictions of man:and:the:
?ork analyses to focus on the nature of the te;t in and for itself) As a rejoinder to the hostile
res,onse this te;t met ?ith amon!st French scholars, Barthes reiterated his desire for a more
systematic a,,roach to literature in Criticism and Truth 5&8446, declarin! that a science of
discourse could only be established if literary analysis took lan!ua!e rather than authors as the
startin!:,oint of its en@uiry)1 As such, Barthes0s o,,osition to the author remained ?ithin an
inductionist itinerary$ the author:@uestion is ,laced ?ithin ,arentheses so as to facilitate the
emer!ence of an e;,erimental methodolo!y) -ith 0The Death of the Author0, ho?ever,
revolutionary im,ulses entirely over:?helm any scientific aims) The removal of the author is no
lon!er a means to an end, a strate!y, but a ,ro,erty of discourse itself$
The removal of the author ) ) ) is not merely an historical fact or an act of ?ritin!G it utterly
transforms the modem te;t 5orA?hich is the same thin!Athe te;t is henceforth made and read in
such a ?ay that at all levels its author is absent6) 5&236
The ?orkin! conte;t in ?hich Barthes ?rote this essay is also si!nificant) At the time, he ?as
,re,arin! to ?rite a microsco,ic analysis of BalFac0s short story 0Sarrasine0Aa ,roject that ?as to
emer!e in &8/+ as SKNAin ?hich the authorial ,ers,ective ?ould be re,laced by that of the
reader as ,roducer of the te;t) 2 0The Death of the Author0 thus forms a theoretical outline of this
undertakin! and o,ens by offerin! a @uote from BalFac0s tale as an e;am,le of the anomie ,ro,er
to all ?ritin!) 'mmediately, Barthes establishes the la,idary cadences that are to characterise the
entire essay$
'n his story 0Sarrasine0 BalFac, describin! a castrato dis!uised as a ?oman, ?rites the follo?in!
sentence$ 0This ?as ?oman herself, ?ith her sudden fears, her irrational ?hims, her instinctive
?orries, her im,etuous boldness, her fussin!s, and her delicious sensibility)0 -ho is s,eakin!
thus7 's it the hero of the story bent on remainin! i!norant of the castrato hidden beneath the
?oman7 's it BalFac the individual, furnished by his ,ersonal e;,erience ?ith a ,hiloso,hy of
-oman7 's it BalFac the author ,rofessin! 0literary0 ideas on femininity7 's it "niversal -isdom7
Romantic ,sycholo!y7 -e shall never kno?, for the !ood reason that ?ritin! is the destruction of
every voice, of every ,oint of ori!in) -ritin! is that neutral, com,osite, obli@ue s,ace ?here our
subject sli,s a?ay, the ne!ative ?here all identity is lost, startin! ?ith the very identity of the body
?ritin!) 5&2*6
Such radical and vatic statements have resulted in 0The Death of the Author0 becomin! the centre
of a controversy) -hat it has not become, thou!h, is the centre of a debate or discussion) <n the
one hand, its dictates have been acce,ted unreflectively, and recourse to Barthes ?ill be used to
0ar!ue0 the death of the author ?ithout the ar!uments ,ro,osed in the seven ,a!es of his essay
bein! themselves held u, to any critical scrutiny)3 <n the other hand, and just as unfortunately,
0The Death of the Author0 has seldom ,rovoked more than derisory dismissal from its o,,onents)
Critics ?ho have ,assionately contested its thesis have rarely so much as disturbed its smooth
surface) %any, many readers have been convinced thatAeven taken on the level of its o?n
,remisesA0The Death of the Author0 is @uite ?ron! and yet have been stymied by their inability to
say @uite ?hy) .ittle is !ained, for instance, ?hen a critic ?rites$ 0As Barthes makes e;,licit, his
attack on the author is an attack on reason itselfG and it is at least consistent that his attack is
irrational)0 4 And still less is to be achieved by the ar!umentum ad hominem ?hich is doubly self:
defeatin! in a discussion of authorshi, since it im,licates itself in the second fallacy of be!!in!
the @uestion) >evertheless, so it is said) A revie? of %alcolm Bradbury0s %enson!e ,uts the case
thus$
The comedy has its basis in one of the loonier tenets of DeconstructionAthat ?e do not control
lan!ua!e$ lan!ua!e 5that im,ersonal, endless ,lay of si!nifiers6 controls us) 't 5rather than
?riters6 ?rites books) But, thou!h Deconstructionists may confidently ,roclaim the Death of the
Author, they have never evinced much difficulty in reconcilin! this vie? ?ith the scoo,in! u, of
advances and royalty che@ues made out to them ,ersonally, not 5as you mi!ht lo!ically su,,ose6
to the n!lish or French lan!ua!e) -hen it suits them, it seems, the Author turns out not to be an
absolute !oner, but just someone on the critical list)/
ven -illiam =ass is not above takin! such a ,assin! ,ot:shot$
#o,ular ?isdom ?arns us that ?e fre@uently substitute the ?ish for the deed, and ?hen, in &84(,
Roland Barthes announced the death of the author, he ?as actually callin! for it) >or did Roland
Barthes himself si!n u, for suicide, but ?rote his ?ay into the Colle!e of France ?here he
,erformed volte:faces for an admirin! audience)(
The essay of =ass0s that commences thus 5like?ise called 0The Death of the Author06 is a most
considered and articulate redress to 0The Death of the Author0, and, as a meditation on the
@uestion of authorshi, in !eneral, more than has its ?ei!ht a!ainst Barthes0s te;t) Eet, as ?ith
other, more e;i!uous rejoinders, it leaves us not a ?hit the ?iser as to the e;traordinarily
,ersuasive ,o?er of the essay that carries the thesis) Somethin! of the ans?er to this may lie not
in the manner of the author0s death but in the nature of the author ?ho a,,arently dies)
Authorshi, And A,otheosis
The death of the author mi!ht be said to fulfil much the same function in our day as did the the
death of =od for late nineteenth:century thou!ht) Both deaths attest to a de,arture of belief in
authority, ,resence, intention, omniscience and creativity) For a culture ?hich thinks itself to have
come too late for the =ods or for their e;termination, the fi!ures of the author and the human
subject are said to fill the theolo!ical void, to take u, the role of ensurin! meanin! in the absence
of meta,hysical certainties) The author has thus become the object of a residual antitheolo!y, as
thou!h the Satan of #aradise .ost had suddenly redirected his rebellion a!ainst the unsus,ectin!
fi!ure of %ilton himself)
Barthes ,oints u, this deicidal analo!y immediately) .ike many other ?orks, 0The Death of the
Author0 establishes a ,reface in its title) The reference is @uite clearly to 0The Death of =od0 as
heralded by The %adman in >ietFsche0s The Doyful -isdom) 8 Barthes ?ill also reinforce this
,rete;t$ referrin! to the 0Author:=od0 and claimin! that the death of the author 0liberates ?hat may
be called an anti:theolo!ical activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fi;
meanin! is, in the end, to refuse =od and his hy,ostasesAreason, science, la?0) 5&2/6 't is in this
dramatic and iconoclastic li!ht that 0The Death of the Author0 demands to be read$ fi!ures of
usur,ation, cons,iracy, and assassination assist its s?ift momentum) 'ts tone, its format and
ethos all su!!est that a !esture of radical si!nificance is bein! undertaken, that ?e are ?itness to
an im,ortant moment in the transvaluation of -estern values) But the deicidal analo!ue is not
stressed merely to hei!hten the im,act of this ,ronouncement, to char!e the act ?ith a
si!nificance it mi!ht not have assumed in more modest ,resentation) Far from it, a definite
homolo!y informs this co:im,lication of the ?riter and divinity, one ?hich tacitly e;,atiates and
enlivens Barthes0s essay)
The author is to his te;t as =od, the auctor vitae, is to his ?orld$ the unitary cause, source and
master to ?hom the chain of te;tual effects must be traced, and in ?hom they find their !enesis,
meanin!, !oal and justification) The author thus becomes, in Derrida0s ?ords, the 0transcendental
si!nified0 and attains the su,ernal ,rivile!e of bein! at once the be!innin! and end of his te;t)&+
Accordin!ly, criticism acce,ts the role of ,assive e;e!ete to the author0s intentions) The te;t is
read as natural theolo!ians read nature for marks of desi!n, si!ns of ,ur,ose) -here there is
desi!n there must be a desi!ner, ?here there is the a,,earance of meanin! there must be
intention) #ost hoc, er!o ,ro,ter hocG the old fallacy is enshrined as the universal la? of literary
causality) As Barthes has said else?here$ 0>othin! is created out of nothin!G this la? of or!anic
nature is shifted ?ithout the shado? of a doubt to literary creation ) ) ) 0&& The author also
ac@uires the further divine attribute of omni,resence ?ithin this scheme since at every sta!e of
te;tual meanin! it is assumed that his desi!ns are incarnate) >ot only does the author become
the cosmolo!ical and teleolo!ical ,rinci,le of the te;t, he is made its eschaton also, its end
understood as both !oal and cessation) The te;t is related to a ,re:established conce,tion of the
author ?hich is both discovered and recovered ?ithin the te;t itself, and, by a circular
determinism, the more authoritative readin! is that ?hich consorts most harmoniously ?ith the
,rior model$
<nce the author is removed, the claim to deci,her a te;t becomes @uite futile) To !ive a te;t an
author is to im,ose a limit on that te;t, to furnish it ?ith a final si!nified, to close the ?ritin!) Such
a conce,tion suits criticism very ?ell, the latter then allottin! to itself the im,ortant task of
discoverin! the Author 5or its hy,ostases$ society, history, ,syche, liberty6 beneath the ?ork$
?hen the Author has been found, the te;t is 0e;,lained0Avictory to the critic) 5&2/6
-ith the author all differences and conflicts are neutralisedG ,olysemia is cancelled) .ike the =od
of Christianity, the author does not e@uivocate or be!uile$ man, as %ilton and the Bible tell us,
only fell from !race ?ith the advent of ambi!uity) The 0Author:=od0 of criticism is thus the
univocal, absolute subject of his ?ork$ he ?ho ,recedes, directs and e;ceeds the ?ritin! that
bears his name) Corres,ondin!ly, then, the liberation of the te;t from its author is to reiterate the
liberation of the ?orld from =od) 'n The Doyful -isdom, >ietFsche ?rites$
'n fact, ?e ,hiloso,hers and 0free s,irits0 feel ourselves irradiated as by a ne? da?n by the re,ort
that the 0old =od is dead0G our hearts overflo? ?ith !ratitude, astonishment, ,resentiment and
e;,ectation) At last the horiFon seems o,en once more, !rantin! even that it is not bri!htG our
shi,s can at last ,ut out to sea in face of every dan!erG every haFard is a!ain ,ermitted to the
discernerG the sea, our sea, a!ain lies o,en before usG ,erha,s never before did such an 0o,en
sea0 e;ist) &*
Freed from the author, the te;t too becomes an 0o,en sea0, a s,ace of manifestly relative
si!nifications, no lon!er tricked out in the colors of an eternal nature0)&1 The death of the author is
the first and sufficient ste, to?ards 0refusin! to assi!n a OsecretO, an ultimate meanin!, to the te;t
5and to the ?orld as te;t60) 5&2/6 'n this deliveranceA?hich Barthes later characterises as the
,assa!e from a >e?tonian to an insteinian universe&2Athe te;t becomes a jouissant
affirmation of indeterminacy, a dance of the ,en, a Dionysian threshin! floor) To im,ose an
author on a te;t is to im,ose an archaic monism on a brave ne? ,luralistic ?orldG it is to seal over
the ceaseless ,lay of differences that the death of =od has o,ened in its ?ake$ 0-e kno? no?
that a te;t is not a line of ?ords releasin! a sin!le Otheolo!icalO meanin! 5the Omessa!eO of the
Author:=od6 but a multi:dimensional s,ace in ?hich a variety of ?ritin!s, none of them ori!inal,
blend and clash)0 5&246 >ot for nothin! does Barthes invoke the >ietFschean deicide$ the analo!y
informs both the author:re,resentation that Barthes ?ishes to evacuate and the liberatin!
conse@uences of abandonin! an authocentric a,,rehension of the te;t)
This analo!yAresonant and illuminatin! as it is in many res,ectsAis aske? in one very broad
sense) The attributes of omni,otence, omni,resence, of bein! the first uncaused cause, ,ur,ose
and end of the ?orld are all affirmed a ,riori of the Christian =od$ they inhere in his definition,
?ithout them 9e is not =od) >ot so for the author thou!h$ ?e can, ?ithout contradiction, conceive
of authors ?ho do not issue 0sin!le theolo!ical messa!es0, ?ho do not hold a univocal mastery
over their te;ts) There are indeed even conce,tions of authorshi, that are determinately anti:
theolo!ical) %ikhail Bakhtin0s conce,t of the dialo!ic author, for e;am,le, is constructed ,recisely
in o,,osition to the univocity of e,ic monolo!ism) &3 But Barthes does not seem to be concerned
?ith ,articular instances of author:re,resentations in this essay, but rather ?ith the !eneral
attitude of criticism to the author @uestion) As 0The Death of the Author0 re,eatedly im,lies, critical
a,,roaches to the te;t have been in essence theocentric, the history of literary criticism has for
the most ,art been the history of the !lorification of the author)
9o?ever, takin! this claim at face value, it is not easy to see ho? the theolo!isin! of the author
can be affirmed as a characteristic of t?entieth:century literary:critical discourse) Certainly, it
?ould be difficult to characterise An!lo:American criticism after this fashion) For a tradition
suffused ?ith notions such as the intentional fallacy, the unreliable narrator, the im,lied author,
Barthes0s essay mi!ht ?ell seem aimed at a tar!et that had lon! since retreated out of ran!e)
-hilst the ?ork of liot, Cro?e Ransom, -imsatt and others, certainly left fissures by ?hich the
author mi!ht re:enter >e? Critical discourse, there is no @uestion that injunctions such as the
intentional fallacy, and the edict that criticism should limit itself to the 0?ords on the ,a!e0 sufficed
to thorou!hly distance their activities from any form of theocentric auteurism, ho?ever te,id such
an a,,roach mi!ht seem by com,arison ?ith the ?ork of French structuralists and
,oststructuralists)
Similarly, ?ithin t?entieth:century Russian literary criticism, the he!emony of the author had been
endurin!ly undermined by the Formalist movement) As early as &8&4, <si, Brik and <,oyaF had
stressed$ 0The social role of the ,oet cannot be understood by an analysis of his individual
@ualities and habits) 't is essential to study on a mass scale the devices of ,oetic craft, ?hat
distin!uishes them from adjacent domains of human labour, and to study the la?s of their
historical develo,ment0) &4 A similar disre!ard for authorial subjectivity also characterised the
?ork of the #ra!ue Structuralists ?ho sou!ht to continue the Formalists0 ,ro!ramme for
establishin! a science of literature) 'ndeed, even in terms of the French man:and:the:?ork
criticism institutionalised by .anson, it still difficult to see ho? the author is sacralised) Certainly,
,ositivist researches of this kind are ri!idly centred u,on the author, but in accordance ?ith
,rinci,les of factuality rather than those of a theolo!y of authorshi,) ven if this movement is
traced back to the nineteenth:century ,ositivism of 9i,,olyte Taine, the author is neither the
ori!inal nor the final term of analysis, but the o,enin! to the race, the milieu, the momentAa
,rocess in ?hich the role of the author is lar!ely that of brid!in! 5rather than creatin!6 te;t and
history)
For sure, critics can be found to fit any descri,tion, and an e;tensive foray mi!ht reveal any
number of te;ts in ?hich the author is deified)&/ But ?hat is absent is the all:,ervasiveness of
theo:auteurist criticism from ?hich 0The Death of the Author0 takes its directions) Rather, the
auteurist ,osition ?hich Barthes takes arms a!ainst is itself lar!ely hy,ostasised) The lar!e body
of critics ?ho ?ork ?ith a more modest conce,tion of authorshi, are not considered, nor the
ameliorative influence such critics brin! to bear u,on the role of the author in literary studies) All
author:,ositions are subsumed under an essentially nineteenth:century theocentrism, a tactic
?hich naturally lends to the death of the author a !reater ur!ency, a more direful necessity)
'n a,,raisin! an essentially iconoclastic ?ork, the most tellin! @uestions are often not to be
addressed to the o,erations ,erformed on the object, nor to the conclusions thereby reached, but
rather to the manner of the re,resentation of the object to be destroyed) 9o? much, ?e should
ask, of the joyous ?ork of destruction consists in badly constructin! the house7 9o? much more
suasive, more joyous, ho? much more effortless and a,ocaly,tic is the demolition of an edifice
built on the shakiest of foundations7 Roland Barthes in 0The Death of the Author0 does not so
much destroy the 0Author:=od0, but ,artici,ates in its construction) 9e must create a kin! ?orthy
of the killin!) >ot only is the author to be com,ared ?ith a tyrannical deity, but also ?ith bour!eois
man himself) it is, Barthes ?rites, 0the e,itome and culmination of ca,italist ideolo!y ) ) ) ?hich
has attached the !reatest im,ortance to the 00,erson00 of the author0) 5&216 9ence, too, the
com,arisons ?ith the ca,italistG and the ca,italisations 50s?ay of the Author0, 0Author diminishin!0,
0rei!n of the Author06 ,rime for deca,itation) 9ence, a!ain, the characterisation of the author as
the Father to ?hom the book is the child) &(
-hat is ha,,enin! in this ,rocedure is that Barthes himself, in seekin! to dethrone the author, is
led to an a,otheosis of authorshi, that vastly out,aces anythin! to be found in the critical history
he takes arms a!ainst) Furthermore, and in collusion ?ith this misre,resentation, Barthes0s entire
,olemic is !rounded in the false assum,tion that if a ma!isterial status is denied the author, then
the very conce,t of the author itself becomes otiose) 'n an identical s,irit, =ayatri Chakravorty
S,ivak ,ronounces that 0The te;t belon!s to lan!ua!e, and not to the soverei!n and !eneratin!
author0&8 but ,rovides no vindication for ,roceedin! 5as she does6 from this calm insi!ht to the
claim that the author has no ,art to ,lay in the ,rocesses of te;t formation and rece,tion) 't ?ould
make little more sense to dismiss Brendel0s inter,retation of the 9ammerklavier Sonata on the
!rounds that he neither o?ned the score nor the Stein?ay on ?hich it ?as ,erformed) That an
entity is not the causa sine @ua non does not ,roscribe a!ainst its bein! the causa causans)
<bservin! li!ht ,assin! throu!h a ,rism 5thou!h 0?e kno?0 that the ,rism is not the absolute
ori!in of the res,lendent s,ectacle before us6 ?e do not deny its effect u,on the li!ht, still less call
for the death of the ,rism) That the author can only be conceived as a manifestation of the
Absolute Subject, this is the root messa!e of every authocide) <ne must, at base, be dee,ly
auteurist to call for the Death of the Author)
The Author in 0The Death of the Author0 only seems ready for death ,recisely because he never
e;isted in the first ,lace) .ike the reader ?hom Barthes ?ould instate in his steadA0the reader is
?ithout history, bio!ra,hy, ,sycholo!yG he is sim,ly that someone ?ho holds to!ether in a sin!le
field all the traces by ?hich the ?ritten te;t is constituted0 5&2(6ABarthes0s Author is a
meta,hysical abstaction, a #latonic ty,e, a fiction of the absolute) This 0monster of totality0 is to
haunt Barthes0s subse@uent ?ritin!)*+
From -ork To .ife
.o?ry could not invent at the level of lan!ua!e, only at the level of life, so that havin! lied life into
a condition suitable for fiction, he ?ould then faithfully and truthfully record it) >o ?onder he felt
enmeshed) >o ?onder, too, that he had
to revisit in order to reviseG re,eat the same difficult ,assa!e of e;istence in order to ,lun!e
further into it, make the necessary chan!es, !et it ri!htG and this meant only too often that he had
to drink himself back into madness a!ain, to resee ?hat ?as to be re?rittenG to fall do?n in a
ditch, to find vultures ,erched on the ?ashbasin, fold fearfully u, in a corner like a ,air of
discarded trousers, or bruise his head bet?een toilet and sink in some dirty anonymous john)
-illiam =ass *&
Barthes is an;ious to ,oint out that the death of the author did not occur ,rior to the ?ritin! of his
e,onymous essay, but he is also keen to establish a number of remote antecedents for this idea$
namely %allarmL, MalLry, the Surrealists and #roust)** For those of us ?ho mi!ht be ,uFFled by
the inclusion of #roust in this conte;t, 0The Death of the Author0 elaborates$ 0By a radical reversal,
instead of ,uttin! his life into his novel, as is so often maintained, he made of his very life a ?ork
for ?hich his o?n book ?as the model$ it is clear to us that Charlus does not imitate %ontes@uiou
but that %ontes@uiouAin his anecdotal, historical realityAis no more than a secondary fra!ment,
derived from Charlus)0 5&226 Barthes ne!lects, ho?ever, to e;,lain ?hy this reversal of customary
literary causality should im,lyAor even tend to?ardAthe diminution of the author) >o less
intimacy and en!a!ement ?ith the author is effected by reversin! his ,lace on the causal chain,
nor indeed any curtailment of authorial control since this is, ?e are told, #roust0s conscious
intention) 'n subse@uent te;ts Barthes ?ill reiterate this insi!ht, thou!h it ?ill be ,ut to a very
different end)
0The Death of the Author0, as stated above, !re? out of the early sta!es of Barthes0s stru!!le ?ith
BalFac in SKN) Commentators on Barthes0s career are united in seein! a decisive chan!e in
direction as occurrin! in the late &84+s, and are all but united in seein! that chan!e as occurrin!
decisively in SKN) This te;t also constitutes a certain crossroads for Barthes in terms of his
attitude to authorshi, in that it at once ,uts into ,ractice the ,rinci,les of 0The Death of the
Author0, and at the same time ?illin!ly relin@uishes some of the !round that the essay ho,ed to
!ain) This ,rocess is dramatically re!istered in one Daniform ,assa!e) Dust as the author seems
?ell and truly buried under the ?ei!ht of this monumental readin!, the critic recalls the author ?ith
the hauteur kin!s reserve for their van@uished$
The Author himselfAthat some?hat decre,it deity of the old criticismAcan or could someday
become a te;t like any other$ he has only to avoid makin! his ,erson the subject, the im,ulse, the
ori!in, the authority, the Father, ?hence his ?ork ?ould ,roceed, by a channel of e;,ressionG he
has only to see himself as a bein! on ,a,er and his life as a bio!ra,hy 5in the etymolo!ical sense
of the ?ord6, a ?ritin! ?ithout referent, substance of a connection and not of a filiation$ the critical
undertakin! ) ) ) ?ill then consist in returnin! the documentary fi!ure of the author into a
novelistic, irretrievable, irres,onsible fi!ure, cau!ht u, in the ,lural of its o?n te;t$ a task ?hose
adventure has already been recounted, not by critics, but by authors themselves, a #roust, a
Dean =enet) *1
This ,assa!eAunre@uired by anythin! in his analysis, and ushered in via the most casual of
,rete;ts*2A?ould seem to ,resu,,ose a ,rior readin! of 0The Death of the Author0) As ?e have
stressed, Barthes is careful to ,oint out that 0The Death of the Author0 is a call to arms and not a
funeral oration, that 0the s?ay of the Author remains ,o?erful0) 5&216 Eet here, in e;tendin! a
certain conditional clemency to the author :and in e;tendin! this clemency some?hat in his ne;t
?ork Sade Fourier .oyola 5&8/&6, to talk of 0the return of the author0Ait is im,lied that the death of
the author is in some sense a thin! achievedG there is, after all, no return ?ithout a de,arture)
.ater a!ain, in The #leasure of the Te;t 5&8/26, Barthes ?ill say$ 0As institution, the author is
dead$ his civic status, his bio!ra,hical ,erson have disa,,eared)0*3 >eedless to say, as
institution the author is not dead, nor ?as then, neither have his civic status and bio!ra,hical
,erson disa,,earedAa!reement on this matter ?ould not seem difficult) But the interest of this
statement is more ,erformative than constative) A!ain a disclaimer is the necessary ,relude to
the call for the author0s rene?alA0but in the te;t, in a ?ay, ' desire the author$ ' need his fi!ure ) )
) as he needs mine)0*4Aand a!ain it is assumed that the death of the author has in some sense,
and at some time, been realised) Eet 0The Death of the Author0, at its o?n testament, is not the
descri,tion of an 0event0 ,rior to itself, and only the most s,ellbound of readers could conclude
that it 0occurs0 in the course of the seven ,a!es that Barthes devotes to the subject)
The revision of an event that has not occurred is of course an oddity, but this is ?hat seems to be
ha,,enin! here) A sym,athetic critic mi!ht see this as an instance of Barthes0s charmin!
contrariety, a more sus,icious mind ?ould vie? it as the reco!nition of a !ross e;a!!eration that
refuses to confess itself) 'n all events, the course to be steered is the same) >o? that the author
is dead, no? that the lesson has been learnt, let us return the author to our circle as a !uest
?hose ,ast trans!ressions have been for!iven but not entirely for!otten) This is the rhetorical
format of the above ,assa!e, as it is, too, of other similar statements of the return of the author
issued by Barthes durin! this ,eriod 5&848P/26) T?o balls must be constantly ke,t u, in the air$
the author ?ill return, but the death of the author must stand) The in!enious manner in ?hich
Barthes ne!otiates this ,roblem is throu!h recastin! the relationshi, bet?een author and critic in
such a ?ay that authorial return does not im,in!e u,on the idea of the birth of the reader) Thus
the author ?ill rea,,ear as a desire of the reader0s, a s,ectre s,irited back into e;istence by the
critic himself) Sade Fourier .oyola balances these e;i!encies adroitly$
The ,leasure of the Te;t also includes the amicable return of the author) <f course, the author
?ho returns is not the one identified by our institutions 5history and courses in literature,
,hiloso,hy, church discourse6G he is not even the bio!ra,hical hero) The author ?ho leaves his
te;t and comes into our life has no unityG he is a mere ,lural of 0charms0, the site of a fe? tenuous
details, yet the source of vivid novelistic !limmerin!s, a discontinuous chant of amiabilities, in
?hich ?e nevertheless read death more certainly than in the e,ic of a fateG he is not a 5civil,
moral6 ,erson, he is a body ) ) ) For if, throu!h a t?isted dialectic, the Te;t, destroyer of all
subject, contains a subject to love, that subject is dis,ersed, some?hat like the ashes ?e stre?
into the ?ind after death ) ) ) */
The death of the Father ,recedes the birth of a loverG and, indeed, the ,leasure of the te;t is itself
evident in the felicity of such a ,resentation) Eet this ?onderful simileA0some?hat like the ashes
?e stre? into the ?ind after death0Ahas its ,lace in the arriQre ,ensLe of ?hich ?e have been
talkin!) A little like Dionysus, or Christ, the author must be dead before he can return) 'n a sense
too, he must continue to be dead thou!h he has returned) The te;t remains the 0destroyer of all
subject0 yet, throu!h the t?ists of a silent dialectic, it also mi!ht contain a 0subject to love0) -hat
0t?ists0 motivate this dialectic ?hich, on the face of it, makes no sense at all7 'f the te;t is
0destroyer of all subject0Aand this is asserted unconditionallyAthen it can contain no subject,
much less one to love) 'f this dialectic is t?isted it is because it is no dialectic at all$ the
statements remain flatly contradictory, they are ,arty to no synthesis ?hatsoever) -hat is called a
0t?isted dialectic0 is in its o,eration far from dialectic, bein! rather a ,iece of lo!odaedaly, a
le!erdemain that seeks to screen the kind of double ,ostulate that Barthes is usually so @uick
5and so ri!ht6 to de,recate) These manoeuvres, thou!h, are to lead Barthes into areas that a
sim,le ,alinode mi!ht have by,assed) The author returns on condition that his life is
discontinuous, fictiveG that he 0,uts the ?ork into the life0) As Barthes sti,ulates in an essay of
&8/&$
't is not that the Author may not 0come back0 in the Te;t, in his te;t, but he then does so as a
0!uest0 ) ) ) his life is no lon!er the ori!in of his fictions but a fiction contributin! to his ?orkG there
is a reversion of the ?ork on to the life 5and no lon!er the contrary6G it is the ?ork of #roust, of
=enet ?hich allo?s their lives to be read as te;t) *(
Bio!ra,hical discourse has taken note of this life:?ork reversal intermittently, not only in the case
of #roust but those of Byron, -ilde and others, describin! the ,rocesses of ,ersona construction,
of ho? authors come to identify obsessively ?ith their characters, ho? an author can s,end
decades livin! throu!h the fictional dream he is attem,tin! to ?rite, ho? the mask comes to ?ear
the man, and so on) Theorists too, the Russian Formalists, Boris Tomaschevsky and Boris
ikenbaum and, more recently, Foucault and #aul de %an, have acce,ted that the fictional
,roject can of occasion out,ace the life:?ork) Tomaschevsky ar!ues that #ushkin 0,oetically
fostered certain facts of his life0, that he invented the story of a doomed love as a back!round
a!ainst ?hich his Southern ,oems ?ould be read, and that this bio!ra,heme ,layed an essential
role in structural ju;ta,osition ?ith the ,oems themselves)*8 Foucault, in ', #ierre RiviQre,
e;amines the case history of a nineteenth:century >orman ,easant ?ho ?rote a forty:,a!e
confession entitled 0', #ierre RiviQre, havin! slau!htered my mother, my sister and my brother ) ) )
0 and then determined to commit the deed$ 0author of it all in a dual sense0, Foucault says, 0author
of the crime and author of the te;t0)1+
Barthes, ho?ever, is not content to see the reversion of the ?ork onto the life in its ,articularityG
rather he makes it the universal la? of literary causality and the sine @ua non of the reintroduction
of the author) For Barthes, far from bein! an aestheticist conceit, or merely a means of addin! a
dash of ostranenie to 0man and the ?ork0 criticism, the chiasmic movement from life:into:?ork to
?ork:into:life is addressed to the @uestion of ,riority) Structuralist thou!ht had defended lan!ua!e
a!ainst reduction to a technicist e,istemolo!y by e;cludin! the author$ this e;clusion acce,ted,
the labour of validatin! the irreducibility of lan!ua!e to e;,erience, subjectivity,
,sychobio!ra,hical factors, or any ,re:te;tual drive, became effortless, tautolo!ical) Thus
TFvetan Todorov could blithely declare$
Art therefore is not the re,roduction of a !iven 0reality0, nor is it created throu!h the imitation of
such a reality) 't demands @uite
different @ualitiesG to be 0real0 can even ) ) ) be harmful) 'n the realms of art there is nothin!
,reliminary to the ?ork, nothin! ?hich constitutes its ori!in) 't is the ?ork of art itself that is
ori!inalG the secondary becomes ,rimary) 1&
Barthes, ,erha,s more than any other theorist, is a?are of the threat that the author ,oses to the
immediacy of lan!ua!e) Thus if the author is to return he can only do so as the ,ro!eny of his te;t
for, in this ?ay, the anteriority of Lcriture remains vouchsafed) And, assuredly, Barthes ?ould
seem to have ne!otiated an in!enious route around this ,roblem) The ,ossibility of a transversal
movement from ?ork to life is not one ?hich admits of easy refutation) The ,roblem is that
Barthes demands too much of it) #aul de %an asks$
-e assume that life ,roduces the autobio!ra,hy as an act ,roduces its conse@uences, but can
?e not su!!est, ?ith e@ual justice, that the autobio!ra,hical ,roject may itself ,roduce and
determine the life and that ?hatever the ?riter does is in fact !overned by the technical demands
of self:,ortraiture and thus determined, in all its as,ects, by the resources of his medium71*
And de %an is ri!ht to ask the @uestion) -e can su!!est this, ,erha,s even assert it, but 0?ith
e@ual justice0)
-hat the insinuation of the !ra,he into the bios discloses is that ?ork and life commute throu!h a
channel ?hich can be traversed in both directions and not, as has been traditionally su,,osed,
only in the direction author:to:te;t) The idea of fictional im,eratives dictatin! the course of a life is
therefore more than a sim,le hysteron ,roteron, but it does not, by any means, amount to an
ar!ument for the ,riority of the ?ritin! scene) <nce the route has been o,ened, once
communication has been established bet?een an author0s ?ritin!, on the one hand, and his
bio!ra,hy, on the other, then any ,o?er of le!islation a!ainst the life also influencin! the ?ork
has been abdicated) At most, the notion of ,uttin!:the:?ork:into:the:life unsettles or tro,es the
mimetic tradition, but ?ithout at all de,artin! from the essential interconnectedness of life and
?ork) The reversal is al?ays o,en to reversal, and so on, ad infinitum) As im,lied in the above
e,i!ra,h ?e have dra?n from -illiam =ass, the relationshi, bet?een ?ork and life is one of a
ceaseless and reactive inter,lay in ?hich neither life nor ?ork has any claim to necessary ,riority)
This notion of ?ork:into:life does not fi!ure !reatly in Sade Fourier .oyola nor else?here in
Barthes0s cor,us, and it is most certainly no?here ar!ued in the manner by ?hich Derrida has
attem,ted to trace a ,rimal scene of ?ritin!) -hat it does do, thou!h, at this ,articular juncture in
Barthes0s career, is to ,rovide a ,oint of return for the author, one ?hich allo?s the reader to take
bio!ra,hical issues on board ?hilst maintainin! that 0life never does more than imitate the book,
and the book itself is only a tissue of si!ns, an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred)0 5&2/6 The
return of the author thus does not reo,en the closed:casket case of his death) The author can be
at once both dead and alive) The task here accom,lished is that of returnin! the author to the
house ?ithout shakin! its foundations, @uietly, incons,icuously, an author ?ho can leave by the
front door only if he enters from the back$ the uncanniest of !uests) 11 >evertheless, once the
!uest is ?ithin his ?alls the host can have ?hat he ?ishes of him) And this is ?hat Sade Fourier
.oyola ?ill do)
The 0Founders <f .an!ua!es0
Sade Fourier .oyola sets a riddle in its tide) -hat links the Satanic %ar@uis, a uto,ian socialist
and the founder of the Society of Desus7 All three, Barthes tells us, are obsessive classifiers,
subdivisionists, their true ,assions are not the body, man and =od res,ectively, but the inventory)
Thus Sade ?ill set the &*+ Days of Sodom the task of discoverin!, namin! and describin! the
4++ ,erversions ,ro,er to mankind, Fourier the &,4(+ ,assions, .oyola the minute subdivisions to
?hich the s,ritual e;ercitant0s first ?eek of devotion is subject) They are constructors of vast
,ro!rammes, systematisers, combinatory analysts ,ar e;cellence) As such they ?ould seem
manifestations of the scri,tor$ 0o,erators0 of the ?ritin! machine, assemblers and rearran!ers of
codes, le;icolo!ists like the youn! de Ruincey invoked in 0The Death of the Author0)12 Sade,
Fourier and .oyola mi!ht then seem to be ?riters ?ho have ?orked throu!h the ,rinci,les of a
deauthorised Lcriture, subjects ?ho have fully surrendered themselves to lan!ua!e and have
allo?ed it to unravel anonymously in their te;ts)
Eet, from the outset, Barthes declares that they are not merely ?riters, nor merely authors or
,hiloso,hers, savants or thinkers) Sade, Fourier and .oyola are 0lo!othetes0, 0founders of
lan!ua!es0 and Sade Fourier .oyola is 0the book of .o!othetes0)13 They are initiators of ?ritin!,
artificers of closed lan!ua!es, subjects en!a!ed in 0the enormous and yet uncertain task of a
constructor of lan!ua!e, of a lo!o:technician0) 5226 Charles Fourier is not just an inventive ?riter,
he is an inventor of ?ritin!G14 the S,iritual ;ercises of .oyola have as their object 0the invention
of a lan!ua!e0G 52(6 0Sade0s !reatness lies not in havin! celebrated crime, ,erversion, nor in
havin! em,loyed in this celebration a radical lan!ua!eG it is in havin! invented a vast discourse
founded in its o?n re,etitions 5and not those of others6)0 5&*46
This idea of the 0founder of lan!ua!e0 ?ill !ive considerable ,ause to anyone familiar ?ith
Barthes0s earlier ?ork) The conviction that lan!ua!e, any lan!ua!e, ho?ever idiosyncratic it mi!ht
a,,ear in ,articular hands, invariably ,recedes and indeed determines the subjects of its ?ritin!
is a constant ,remise of Barthes0s ?ork durin! the &84+s, and one ?hich finds its most direct
e;,ression in 0The Death of the Author0) But ?ith the conce,t of the 0founder of lan!ua!e0 he
?ould seem to entirely subvert this thesis) At every ,oint at ?hich 0The Death of the Author0
attem,ts to justify itself, it has immediate recourse to the ,riority of ?ritin!$ 0The te;t is a ,lace
?here ) ) ) a variety of ?ritin!s, none of them ori!inal, blend and clash0G 0the ?riter can only imitate
a !esture that is al?ays anterior, never ori!inal0) 1/ Eet Sade Fourier .oyola states, in full
confidence$ 0The lan!ua!e they found is obviously not lin!uistic, a lan!ua!e of communication) 't
is a ne? lan!ua!e)0 516
Accordin!ly, the first act of lo!othesis is a ?ithdra?al from the sociolect, a voidin! of the lin!uistic
,ast and ,resent) Barthes insists u,on this$ 0The ne? lan!ua!e must arise from a material
vacuumG an anterior s,ace must se,arate it from the other common, idle, outmoded lan!ua!e,
?hose OnoiseO mi!ht hinder it0) 526 -ithin this 0material vacuum0 the lo!othete is at the crossin!,
both outside and bet?i;t lan!ua!es) 9ence Barthes ?ill stress the im,ortance of the self:
isolations, the retirements and ,re,arations of these 0founders0) .ike the Author, the lo!othete
0nourishes0 the book$ 0All these ,re,aratory ,rotocols, by eliminatin! from the field of the retreat
?orldly, idle, ,hysical, natural lan!ua!e, in short other lan!ua!es, are aimed at achievin! the
homo!eneity of the lan!ua!e to be constructed, in a ?ord, its ,ertinence)0 53*6 To invent
lan!ua!e it is necessary to refuse it$ 0All these ,rotocols have the function of creatin! in the
e;ercitant a kind of lin!uistic vacuum necessary for the elaboration and for the trium,h of the ne?
lan!ua!e0) 5286 A lin!uistic break is thus achieved by the lo!othete, one that does not constitute a
mutation of the system but the evolution of a truly closed and ori!inal ?ritin! ,ractice) That such a
desire for a ne? lan!ua!e should e;ist is no cause for sur,rise) -hat is unusual is Barthes0s
confidence that Sade, Fourier and .oyola all succeeded in this immense undertakin!)1(
Mie?ed from any stand,oint, the idea of the lo!othete forces some reali!nment of the author:
@uestion both in Barthes0s ?ork and ?ithin the ,oststructuralist movement in !eneral) The
descri,tion is too ,o?erful, too unsettlin!, to be !lossed a?ay as another instance of the loss of
the subject in lan!ua!e) 18 The author:centred critics Barthes took issue ?ith in <n Racine talked
of the Racinian universe, Racine0s !enius, 5Barthes talks of 0Sade0s !enius06 but no?here do they
talk of a 0founder of lan!ua!e0) 'ndeed, the lo!otheric descri,tion belon!s to ?hat ?e mi!ht call a
0meta:authorial0 ,ers,ective) That is to say, one ?hich characterises certain authors as havin!
e;ceeded the ,arameters of conventional author:te;t relations) This is not an isolated aberration
in the ,oststructuralist canon but a theme that is to occur in %ichel Foucault and Dac@ues Derrida
as ?ell as in the ?ork of avo?edly author:centred critics such as 9arold Bloom) These theorists
?ill ,ut for?ard ,o?erful accounts of ho? influence and inscri,tion can overrun even the most
!enerous of !eneticist models)
The idea of the lo!othete also necessitates the rene?al of the conce,t of the oeuvre) 0Te;t0 in
Sade Fourier .oyola, ?e soon notice, means oeuvre) S,ecific citations themselves are rare$
throu!hout Barthes talks of the 0Sadian te;t0 as thou!h Dustine, #hiloso,hy in the Boudoir, The
&*+ Days of Sodom and so on, all form one indissoluble ?ritin!) And ?ell he mi!ht) <ne of the
,rinci,al theses of Sade Fourier .oyola is that the lo!othete is continually involved in a sin!le
,roject, that of constructin! an autarkic lan!ua!e, and not least amon! Barthes0s achievements
here is his discovery of a manner of s,eakin! about a body of ?ritin! ?ithout rela,se to
conce,tual ma,,in! or reduction to an arid homo!eneity$ the lo!othetic ?ork is that of ceaseless
difference ?ithin a sin!le ,roject) A recursive ?ritin! almost$ infinitely !enerative of its o?n
elements, but closed and oblivious to anythin! outside of itself) 'ndeed this closure has been
affirmed not only of the outcasts Sade, Fourier and .oyola, but as the condition of all ?ritin!$ 0All
modes of ?ritin! have in common the fact of bein! OclosedO ) ) ) ?ritin! is a hardened lan!ua!e
?hich is self:contained)02+ 'f indeed the lo!othetic lan!ua!e is closedAand Sade Fourier .oyola
cannot ?ork ?ithout this ,remiseAthen the ,ossibility of its establishin! a broad interte;t is
,recluded, and it is ,erforce located firmly ?ithin the s,ace of the oeuvre) For lo!othesis to make
any sense at all, 0te;t0 in Sade Fourier .oyola must mean oeuvre)
<f course, faith in the oeuvre is nothin! less than faith in the author, or in his si!nature at least,
and the constants and corres,ondences thereby contracted) 'n absolutely minimalist terms, the
author is that ,rinci,le ?hich unites the objectsA?hether collusive or discreteAthat !ather under
his ,ro,er name) And indeed a certain sus,icion of the oeuvre is to be found in many forms of
traditional criticism) #ro,ositions of the order, 0the .ud?i! -itt!enstein ?ho ?rote the Tractatus is
not the .ud?i! -itt!enstein of the #hiloso,hical 'nvesti!ations0 are common,lace amon!st
commentators ?ho other?ise have no ,articular hostility to the institution of the author) Eet
Barthes, author of the author0s death, has evinced considerable faith in the oeuvre, not only in the
s,ecial cases of Sade, Fourier and .oyola, but at many ,oints ?ithin his o?n oeuvre, and often
?ith su,reme indifference to dis,arities of content, ideas, ,ositions) 'n -ritin! De!ree Nero, style
is ,ro,osed as the etymon, the silver thread ?hich both unites a ?riter0s ?ork, and sets it off
a!ainst that of others$ a 0self sufficient lan!ua!e0 ?hich 0has its roots only in the de,ths of the
author0s ,ersonal and secret mytholo!y, that subnature of e;,ression ?here the first coition of
?ords and thin!s takes ,lace, ?here once and for all the !reat verbal themes of his e;istence
come to be installed0) 2& %ichelet set out to 0restore to this man his coherence0,2* ?hile <n
Racine, althou!h reluctant to !round the oeuvre in the creativity and cohesion of the individual
subject, nevertheless sou!ht for structural and thematic unity ?ithin the Racinian tra!edies) ven
SKN @uite freely acce,ts BalFac0s oeuvre and devotes a section to describin! the ,leasures of
movin! bet?een various BalFacian characters and locales)
-ith Sade Fourier .oyola, ho?ever, Barthes subjects the notion of the oeuvre to a certain
revaluation ?hich had al?ays been im,licit in his earlier ?ork) This revaluation consists in
releasin! the life0s ?ork from the ?earisome and laborious chronolo!ical considerations of
conventional oeuvre criticism) Barthes treats the oeuvre as an ever,resent interte;t, a s,ace to
be ran!ed for?ards and back?ards ?ithout ,ro!ressional res,onsibilities) <euvre:readin! is thus
relieved of the ,ro!rammatics of anteriority, develo,ment$ the !eneral or!anicist and teleolo!ical
rationales ?hich have formerly stood its surety are dis,laced by a fecund s,ace, a s,ace of
coherencies and constellations, but not of synta!matic order) .ike?ise, the flattenin! out of
a,,arent contradictions, or the synthetic ,rocess of their assimilation into a !reater ?hole have
no ,lace in this form of oeuvre:readin!) >o lon!er a for?ard march from fled!lin! te;ts to mature
thou!ht, the oeuvre becomes an arena or elli,se in ?hich everythin! is rha,sodic, nothin!
se@uential, in ?hich themes, ,assa!es, ideas t?ist round u,on each other in the manner of
leitmotivs) -hen readin! Sade, there is no call, say, to be!in ?ith the first version of Dustine and
to end ?ith the last survivin! ?ork at Charenton, nor to take account of the t?o decades of
revolution and counterrevolution that intervened bet?een their com,osition$ his te;ts belon! to a
common self:identical site, the site of their o?n recursive and idiorhythmic lan!ua!e ?hich eludes
the re!imens of the linear, the tem,oral) -hat is au!ured here is 5by an interestin! reversal ?hich
combines conce,ts traditionally set at odds ?ith each other6 an interte;tualisin! of the oeuvre, a
freedom to traffic bet?een an author0s ?orks that is ,erversely delimited by the narrative
conventions of customary oeuvre:readin!) "nder the headin! 0Rha,sody0, Barthes ?rites of the
0Sadian novel0$
To recount, here, does not consist in develo,in! a story and then untan!lin! it, adherin! to an
infinitely or!anic model 5to be born, to live, to die6, i)e), to subject the series of e,isodes to a
natural 5or lo!ical6 order, ?hich becomes the meanin! im,osed by 0Fate0 on every life, every
journey, but in ,urely and sim,ly ju;ta,osin! iterative and mobile fra!ments$ then the continuum
is merely a series of bits and ,ieces, a baro@ue fabric of odds and ends ) ) ) This construction
frustrates the ,aradi!matic structure of the narrative 5in ?hich each e,isode has its
0corres,ondent0 some?here further on ?hich counterbalances or rectifies it6 and thereby, eludin!
the structuralist readin! of the narration, it constitutes an outra!e of meanin!$ the rha,sodic
5Sadian6 novel has no meanin! or direction, nothin! com,els it to ,ro!ress, develo,, end) 5&2+6
This ,assa!e s,eaks ?ell also for the bio!ra,hical innovations that Sade Fourier .oyola
su!!ests) Barthes adds the author0s life to the oeuvre in the 0.ives0 section just as else?here he
joins cor,us to cor,us by readin! the body ?ritin! into the body of ?ritin!) Tomaschevsky had
,ro,osed the le!end created by the author as 0literary fact0G 21 Barthes makes the bio!ra,heme
the basis of his ?ritin! of a life)
'n the second ,reface to 0#hiloso,hy in the Tra!ic A!e of the =reeks0, >ietFsche ?rote$
in systems that have been refuted it is only ItheJ ,ersonal element that can still interest us, for this
alone is eternally irrefutable) 't is ,ossible to sha,e the ,icture of a man out of three anecdotes) '
endeavor to brin! into relief three anecdotes out of every system and abandon the remainder)22
'n Sade Fourier .oyola, Barthes ,resents the life of Fourier in t?elve anecdotes that s,an less
than t?o ,a!es) .ike the >ietFschean bio!ra,her, he makes do ?ith very little$
&) Fourier$ a sho, ste?ard 50A sho, ste?ard ?ho ?ill refute ,olitical and moral libraries, the
shameful fruit of ancient and modern
@uackeries06) At BesanSon, his ,arents ran a cloth and s,ice store$ trade, e;ecrated, s,ice,
adored in the form of a body, the aromale ?hich 5amon! other thin!s6 ?ill ,erfume the seasG at
the court of the Bin! of %orocco, there is said to be a Director of the Royal Scents$aside from the
monarchy, and the director, Fourier ?ould have been enchanted by this title ) ) )
8) 9is kno?led!e$ mathematical and e;,erimental sciences, music, !eo!ra,hy, astronomy)
&+) 9is old a!e$ he surrounded himself ?ith cats and flo?ers)
&&) 9is concier!e found him dead in his dressin! !o?n, kneelin! amon! the flo?er,ots)
&*) Fourier had read Sade) 5&(*P26
The lon!er life of Sade consists of t?enty:t?o entries ?hich s,an material as diverse as the
etymolo!y of Sade0s name, the ?i!s ?orn by his enemy #olice .ieutenant Sartine, a declaration
of the ,riority of the ?ritin! scene, as ?ell as trifles such as, 0Suddenly transferred from
Mincennes to the Bastille, Sade made a !reat fuss because he had not been allo?ed to brin! his
0bi! ,illo? ) ) ) 00The barbarianT000) 5&(&6 As the mor,heme is to the lin!uistic analysis, the mytheme
to myth, so the bio!ra,heme is the minimal unit of bio!ra,hical discourse) Eet des,ite these
scientific consonances, the bio!ra,hical ,rocedures it heralds are as far removed from
structuralist methodolo!ies as they are from documentary ,ositivism) 'f anythin!, it is a ,oet0s
conce,tion)
The bio!ra,heme obviously need not be an incident central to the life of the subject) As the
0#reface0 to Sade Fourier .oyola says, Barthes is not concerned ?ith the 0,il!rima!es, visions,
mortifications and constitutions0 of the '!natian life but ?ith the saint0s O0beautiful eyes, al?ays a
little filled ?ith tearsO0) 5(6 <ften the bio!ra,heme ?ould seem entirely tan!ential, not only to the
life but to the e,isode in ?hich it occurs) -hereas traditional Sadian bio!ra,hers marshal
evidence from every @uarter in order to determine e;actly ?hat ha,,ened durin! Sade0s
accostin! of Rose Beller, Barthes0s interest is in the 0?hite muff Sade ?ore at the time, 0an article
obviously donned to satisfy the ,rinci,le of tact ?hich seems to have ,resided over the %ar@uis0s
sadistic activity0) 5&/26 Similarly it is ?ith 0that #rovencal ?ay in ?hich Sade says OmilliO0, 5(6 ?ith
Charles Fourier0s likin! for 0little #arisian s,ice cakes0 called 0mirlitons0) This is the 0chant of
amiabilities0, the 0,lural of charms0) Eet the bio!ra,heme achieves more than Barthes says it ?ill)
These detailsAFourier0s cats and flo?ers, Sade0s dislike of the seaAare crystalline moments in
lives ?hose motion and totality are necessarily irrecoverable) -hile the conventional bio!ra,her
?ill seek to mimic the im,etus of a life, to re!ister it accordin! to certain re,resentative
,ro,ortions, the bio!ra,heme breaks ?ith the teleolo!y im,licit in this lambent narrative
movement) vents are not connected to im,ly any destiny or ,ur,ose in the course of a life,
rather the bio!ra,hemes are the shards of any such for?ard movement, those velleities that are
,assed over in the more frenetic, directed movement of the foot,rint:follo?in! bio!ra,her) The
bio!ra,heme arrests the ,ro!ressional narrative of bio!ra,hy ,ro,er, its insistence on readin!
themes of develo,ment and decline into the em,irical contents of an author0s life)
Conse@uently Barthes is not concerned ?ith Sade0s life as evil !rand sei!neur and sansculotte,
vie?ed in all its tra!ic resonances as 0a man o,,ressed by an entire society because of his
,assion0 nor ?ith the 0solemn contem,lation of a fate0)5(6 The bio!ra,heme sus,ends narrative
time and the telos that only such time can insure) 'ts ethos has affinities ?ith the #roustian
conce,t of 0involuntary memory0 as it has too ?ith the re,ertoires of ordinary memory) Those ?ho
have lost their nearest and dearest do not recall their de,arted in the manner of the monumental
bio!ra,her, but throu!h discrete ima!es, a love of cats and flo?ers, a likin! for ,articular cakes,
?atery eyes like '!natius of .oyola) And those ima!es, sufficient to themselves, are also ima!es
that 5in the ?ords of Eeats6, 0fresh ima!es be!et0G they refer or e;,and to other ima!es not by
synta!matic structurin! but by association, invocatively)
For Barthes, never far from #roust, the bio!ra,heme reverberates ?ith the ,athos of lost time,
and yet ,artici,ates in its recovery) Barthes makes this clear in Camera .ucida$ 0' like certain
features ?hich, in a ?riter0s life, deli!ht me as much as certain ,hoto!ra,hsG ' have called these
features Oblo!ra,hemesOG #hoto!ra,hy has the same relation to 9istory that the bio!ra,heme has
to bio!ra,hy)0 23 .ike the ,hoto!ra,h of his mother so beautifully described later in that te;t, the
bio!ra,heme is all that endures once a life has run its course$ those moments that can be stilled,
,icturedAa bloated eunuch in a ,rison cell, a man dead amon! his flo?er,ots, a ?hite muff ?orn
on a ni!ht in &/4() -hat is modestly adumbrated here is a revaluation of bio!ra,hy, a ne? form
of its ?ritin! ?hich does not lie a!ainst time but acce,ts its conditions in a s,irit of melancholy
defiance) -here the death of the author had addressed itself to the timeless 0Author:=od0, the
return of the bio!ra,hical author is a return to transcience, mortality)
Follo?in! u,on SKN, ?hich sou!ht to ?ork throu!h and beyond structuralist cate!ories, Sade
Fourier .oyola makes the decisive break ?ith the scientism Barthes ,ractised in the &84+s, and
alon! ?ith The #leasure of the Te;t makes a theoretical clearin! for Roland Barthes by Roland
Barthes, A .over0s Discourse and Camera .ucida) 24 A re?orked conce,tion of the author is the
first move in this direction) To reintroduce the author and the author0s life is to create a tha? in the
cold dream of structuralist objectivity) 'ndeed, as the eudaemonist aesthetic comes to su,,lant
the structural cate!ories, the cohabitance of author and reader in the te;t becomes not only ,art
of the te;t0s ,leasure but its 0inde;0$
>othin! is more de,ressin! than to ima!ine the Te;t as an intellectual object 5for reflection,
analysis, com,arison, mirrorin!, etc)6) The te;t is an object of ,leasure) The bliss of the te;t is
often only stylistic$ there are e;,ressive felicities, and neither Sade nor Fourier lacks them)
9o?ever, at times the ,leasure of the Te;t is achieved more dee,ly 5and then is ?hen ?e can
truly say there is a Te;t6$ ?henever the 0literary0 Te;t 5the Book6 transmi!rates into our life,
?henever another ?ritin! 5the <ther0s ?ritin!6 succeeds in ?ritin! fra!ments of our o?n daily
lives, in short, ?henever a co:e;istence occurs) The inde; of the ,leasure of the Te;t, then, is
?hen ?e are able to live ?ith Fourier, ?ith Sade) To live ?ith an author does not necessarily
mean to achieve in our life the ,ro!ram that the author has traced in his books ) ) ) to live ?ith
Sade is, at times, to s,eak Sadian, to live ?ith Fourier is to s,eak in Fourier ) ) ) 5/P(6
%uch indeed is staked on the return of the author to this sta!e) -ith the founder of lan!ua!e, the
acce,tance of the author0s life and cor,us, 0The Death of the Author0 seems almost to belon! to a
different era) Eet, of course, it does not) 'n many res,ects they are contem,oraries)2/ 't is
,erha,s because of the disru,tions that these t?o te;ts ?ork u,on each other that they rarely if
ever meet in readin!s of Barthes) .ittle in fact tends to be ?ritten about Sade Fourier .oyola)
Commentators have !enerally been ha,,y to move from SKN to The #leasure of the Te;t, thereby
sideste,,in! the reo,enin! of the authorshi, @uestion that this te;t beseeches) Fe?, if any, of
Barthes0s critics ?ill simultaneously countenance 0The Death of the Author0 and Sade Fourier
.oyola for to do so ?ould seem to risk runnin! into a,oria or incoherence)2() There is an
un?illin!ness here to acce,t the very antilo!ism that is so lauded in Barthes, an un?illin!ness to
relin@uish the idea of order in his discourse) A discourse ?hich, let it be remembered, could @uite
conceivably be !rounded in uncertainty, in the confusion of a mind before the contradictory
,ossibilities that its unbridled intelli!ence has o,ened u,) .ittle heed is thus taken of that ma;im
of AndrL =ide0s ?hich Barthes claimed has !overned his o?n ?ritin! lifeA0incoherence is
,referable to a distortin! order0) 28 There is, thou!h, one very im,ortant sense in ?hich the
lo!othetic descri,tion is faithful to everythin! Barthes has ?ritten, a sense in ?hich ?e mi!ht
discover ?hat is meant by the death of the author and his ,reci,itous return)
%imesis And The Author
Barthes allo?s the lo!othetes ,rivile!es that e;tent far beyond those !ranted the author in
traditional man:and:the:?ork criticism) -hat Barthes ?ill not allo? to his founders, ho?ever, is
any re,resentational si!nificance in their discourses, any content$ Sade ?ithout evil, Fourier
?ithout socialism, .oyola ?ithout =od, these are the ,ostulates u,on ?hich the study
commences) 'n this ?e mi!ht find an e;,lanation of Barthes0s seemin!ly insurmountable
inconsistencies on the author:@uestion) -hy is it that he ?ill allo? full authorial ri!hts to some
authorsAa class to ?hich belon!, beyond the lo!othetes, %ichelet, #roust, Bataille, Sollers and
so onAand deny them to others, most notably BalFac7 -hy is it that Barthes can dis,ara!in!ly
?rite 0The author still rei!ns in histories of literature, bio!ra,hies of ?riters, intervie?s,
ma!aFines0,3+ and yet ,raise #ainter0s bio!ra,hy of #roust sayin!, 0' ?as very im,ressed by his
#roust because #ainter ?as the first to rehabilitate a real interest in the ,rivate life of #roust
himself and no lon!er sim,ly in the characters of his novel073& <f Sade, Barthes ?rites$
Althou!h every creation is of necessity combinative, society, by virtue of the old romantic myth of
0ins,iration0, cannot stand bein! told so) Eet this is ?hat Sade has done$ he has o,ened u, and
revealed his ?ork 5his 0?orld06 like the interior of a lan!ua!e ) ) ) I<Jn every ,a!e of his ?ork,
Sade ,rovides us ?ith evidence of concerted 0irrealism0 ) ) ) Bein! a ?riter and not a realistic
author, Sade al?ays chooses the discourse over the referentG he al?ays sides ?ith semiosis
rather than mimesis$ ?hat he 0re,resents0 is constantly bein! deformed by the meanin!, and it is
on the level of the meanin!, not of the referent that ?e should read him) 514P/6
And in the 0#reface0 it is underlined that 0if Sade, Fourier, and .oyola are founders of a lan!ua!e,
and only that, it is ,recisely in order to say nothin!, to observe a vacancy 5if they ?anted to say
somethin!, lin!uistic lan!ua!e, the lan!ua!e of communication and ,hiloso,hy, ?ould suffice$
they could be summarised, ?hich is not the case ?ith any one of them6)0 546 Barthes, here as
every?here, is denyin! the reduction of lan!ua!e to any re,resentational aesthetic) 'n Criticism
and Truth, in 0The Death of the Author0, in SKN too, indeed ?henever the removal, death or
diminution of the author ?as called for, the disavo?al of an instrumentalist conce,tion of
lan!ua!e ?as not far behind) >or is this uni@ue to Barthes) Anti:authorialism has al?ays found
itself in com,licity ?ith anti:re,resentational ,oetics) The Russian Formalists and >e? Critics sa?
the removal of the author as ,art of the ,rocess ?hich disemburdened literature of any
de,endence on e;trate;tual conte;ts, ?hilst in the structuralist movement this is taken to the
further sta!e of seein! lan!ua!e as constitutive of both the 0reality0 the te;t fei!ns to re,resent
and the authorial subject ?ho ,ur,orts to be its source) Recently, too, in the ,oststructural ,hase
of its develo,ment, feminist criticism has come to bracket to!ether auteurist and re,resentational
aesthetics) Both the conce,t of the author, and that of a reality onto ?hich te;tual lan!ua!e
,assively o,ens, are seen to be the ,roducts of a ,atriarchal ,olitics of re,resentation) At the
centre of humanist criticism, Toril %oi ?rites,
is the seamlessly unified selfAeither individual or collectiveA?hich is commonly called 0%an0 ) ) )
'n this humanist ideolo!y the self is the sole author of history and of the literary te;t$ the humanist
creator is ,otent, ,hallic and maleA=od in relation to his ?orld, the author in relation to his te;t)
9istory or the te;t become nothin! but the 0e;,ression0 of this uni@ue individual$ all art becomes
autobio!ra,hy, a mere ?indo? onto the self and the ?orld, ?ith no reality of its o?n) 3*
The ideolo!ies of authorshi, and re,resentation mutually reinforce one another, and in order to
,ut an end to this mystified conce,tion of lan!ua!e, %oi says, 0?e must take the further ste, and
,roclaim ) ) ) the death of the author0)31 From such a ,oint of vie?, then, ?ithin 0subject of
re,resentation0, the !enitive is thou!ht to be double$ both the re,resentin! subject and the subject
re,resented are to be detached from the ,lane of ,oststructural analysis so as to focus u,on the
reality of te;t and lan!ua!e) Such is also the basis of contem,orary %ar;ist objections to the
author, as too of many strands of deconstruction ?hich maintain that e;trate;tual realities such as
0author0 and 0?orld0 are miasmas !enerated by te;tual rhetorics) 9o?ever, des,ite this common
closure bein! a dominant theme in literary theory, the reasons ?hy the author should be
ine;tricably cau!ht u, in the demise of re,resentation are rarely stated e;,licitly)
The conce,t of the author is by no means static or immutable) 9istory ,rovides am,le evidence of
chan!in! attitudes to authorshi, from second:century BC Ale;andria throu!h the e;e!eses of the
arly Church Fathers to %edieval times) 32 .ike?ise, the role of the author varies from one
aesthetic milieu to another) -ithin an era in ?hich re,resentational modes are in the ascendant,
the author is called u,on to ,erform certain s,ecific functions) A te;t vie?ed as the achievement
of a ,articular re,resentational aim is necessarily tethered to its author in that it must ,ass
throu!h his fi!ure to be referred to its alle!ed objects) A scene of re,resentation is thus
,redicated of the te;t ?hich becomes its adjunct and often the model by means of ?hich
commentary or e;,lication is jud!ed to have succeeded or failed in its o,erations) Thus <liver
T?ist is referred to the #oor .a?s, Bleak 9ouse to Chancery, a model of intention is e;tracted
from Dickens0s life, his activities in the la? are researched and conjectures are made as to his
state of mind at the time of ?ritin!) 'n this ?ay, criticism is forced to be ,er,etually la!!in! behind
the desi!ns and dictates of the author ?hilst the ?ork0s lan!ua!e is seen as the sim,le means
to?ards a referential end) .an!ua!e is thereby devalued to the status of an instrument, a ,assive,
mediative ,henomenon ?hich has no ,art to ,lay in the construction of this anterior realm of
reality:as:!iven)
Corres,ondin!ly, the break ?ith the author effects a severance of the te;t from its ,utative
referential obli!ations, and allo?s lan!ua!e to become the ,rimary ,oint of de,arture and return
for te;tual a,,rehension and analysis) >o lon!er reduced to a unilateral system of conformities
?ith the 0?orld0, no lon!er reduced to a 0sin!le messa!e0, the te;t is o,ened to an unlimited variety
of inter,retations) 't becomes, in short, irres,onsible, a ceaseless braidin! of differences in ?hich
any sense of 0the truth of the te;t0, its ori!inal meanin! in the ?orld, is overrun by untrammeled
si!nificative ,ossibilities) This is the messa!eAindeed the 0sin!le messa!e0Aof 0The Death of the
Author0) To ?it, that the abolition of the author is the necessary and sufficient ste, to brin! about
the end of a re,resentational vie? of lan!ua!e, for it is only throu!h the function of the author as
the ,ossessor of meanin! that te;tual lan!ua!e is made obeisant to an e;trate;tual reality)
Barthes states this @uite dramatically in SKN under the rubric of 0The %astery of %eanin!0$
The author is al?ays su,,osed to !o from si!nified to si!nifier, from content to form, from idea to
te;t, from ,assion to e;,ressionG and, in contrast, the critic !oes in the other direction, ?orks back
from si!nifiers to si!nified) The mastery of meanin!, a veritable semiur!ism, is a divine attribute,
once this meanin! is defined as
the dischar!e, the emanation, the s,iritual effluvium overflo?in! from the si!nified to?ard the
si!nifier$ the author is a !od 5his ,lace of ori!in is the si!nified6G as for the critic, he is the ,riest
?hose task is to deci,her the -ritin! of the !od) 33
This nicely describes the futile shuttlin! bet?een author and critic, encoder and decoder, ?hen it
o,erates in this rudimentary manner) But here, as in other instances, he must overstate his case,
and, a!ain, theolo!ical overtones su,ervene u,on the author @uestion) The acme of
re,resentation, the ideal of verisimilitude hearkened to?ards by the ,ro,onents of 0,ure realism0,
casts the author in a role far removed from that of a te;tual divinity) As ?e have said, mimeticist
criticism must ,ass throu!h the fi!ure of the author in order to arrive at the objects of
re,resentation, yet, in a ,urely mimeticist vie?, these objects are sufficient to themselves$ the
author is merely the conduit or ,oint of ,assa!e in this ,rocedure, that neutral 0someone0 ?ho
records and observes ?ithout subjective biases or ,redilections of any kind) %arks of intention
and desire ?ill ,erforce taint this ,rocess ?hich as,ires to a state of ,ure immediacy, ,erfect
translation, to the realisation of a lan!ua!e ?hich acts innocently as a ?indo? onto the ?orld)
Authorial ,resence here constitutes a trans!ression, it can only cast a shado? on the te;t of
vraisemblable, can only colour the ?indo? throu!h ?hich the reader looks) The ,urely mimeticist
te;t could certainly do ?ithout the authorG indeed its !reatest !ood mi!ht be somethin! like the
self:effacement of the author in the act of ?ritin!) -itness mile Nola formulatin! the theory of
,ure realism$
The novelist is but a recorder ?ho is forbidden to jud!e and to conclude) The strict role of a
savant is to e;,ose the facts, to !o to the end of analysis ?ithout venturin! into synthesisG the
facts are thus$ e;,eriment tried in such and such conditions !ives such and such resultsG and he
sto,s thereG for if he ?ishes to !o beyond the ,henomena he ?ill enter into hy,othesisG ?e shall
have ,robabilities, not science ) ) ) the novelist should kee, e@ually to kno?n facts, to the
scru,ulous study of nature, if he does not ?ish to stray amon! lyin! conclusions) 9e himself
disa,,ears, he kee,s his emotion ?ell in hand, he sim,ly sho?s ?hat he has seen ) ) ) a novelist
?ho feels the need of becomin! indi!nant ?ith vice, or a,,laudin! virtue, not only s,oils the data
he ,roduces, for his intervention is as tryin! as it is useless, but the ?ork loses its stren!thG it is
no lon!er a marble ,a!e, he?n from the block of realityG it is matter ?orked u,, kneaded by the
emotions of the author,
and such emotions are al?ays subject to ,rejudices and errors) 34
'ndeed realist theory only comes to assi!n a si!nificant role to the author ?hen it has drifted from
the ideal of ,ure mimesis, as the re,resented field o,ens to admit the moods, ,ersonality and
e;,eriences of the author as a subjective bein!) >or, indeed, is it difficult to ima!ine ar!uments to
the effect that the decline of re,resentation o,ens a s,ace of !reater authorial creativity as the
?riter becomes less and less bound to the objects of re,resentation) -e are, after all, more
inclined to see creativity in a #icasso than in a Turner) Descri,tive lan!ua!e, as Barthes is @uick
to ,oint out, is an obstacle to creativity) Sade read for 0contents0 becomes 0tedious0 or
0abominable0) -e could also, ?ith little effort, ima!ine Barthes ar!uin! for subjectivity a!ainst
objective realism, ar!uin!, that is, for the author a!ainst the kind of authorial abne!ation
,romoted by Nola)3/
't is not meant to su!!est here that the conce,t of the author does not endorse a
re,resentationalist vie? of the te;t) -hat is clear, ho?ever, is that the author is not the cause of a
re,resentational a,,rehension of literatureAthis cause is, at risk of soundin! imbecilic, an
instrumentalist conce,tion of lan!ua!e) Rather the authorial role is mediative in this ,rocess, that
of a brid!e or ,ortal bet?een te;t and ?orld) Ruite a,art from bein! the =od ?ho d?ells in the
si!nified, the author is merely the a!ent of verisimilitude) This should !ive some ,ause to thoseA
Barthes is by no means alone hereA?ho ?ould justify the death of the author in terms of the
closure of re,resentation) =iven the secondariness of the author in this referential ,rocess, mi!ht
not the ,ro,osition be reversed7 %i!ht not it be claimed, a fortiori, that the abandonment of a
re,resentationalist aesthetic renders the death of the author needless7 <r, to ,ut it another ?ay,
that the conce,t of the author e;ceeds the functions !iven ?ithin a re,resentationalist aesthetic7
Certainly, this ?ould seem to be ,art of the meanin! of the death and return of the author in
Barthes0s ?ork) As ?e kno?, the deconstruction of verisimilitude continues lon! after the return of
the author has been announced, author and Te;t bein! no lon!er set in o,,osition to one
another) %oreover, the authors of te;ts ?hich make no claim to a re,resentational 0truth0A
%allarmL, Sollers, Bataille, Robbe:=rillet, and so onAare acce,ted ?ithout reserve) Their ?ork is
seen as the ,roduct of an intention to create the discontinuous, a:referential, ,luralistic te;t) -hile
Barthes ?ill berate recourse to the intentions of a BalFac, he ?ill acce,t the intentions of others
?hile they are directed to?ard the creation of non:naturalistic modes of ?ritin!$
one can accordin! to one0s mood read Sade, #roust, by 0ski,,in!0, accordin! to the moment, this
or that of their lan!ua!es ) ) ) the ,lural of the te;t is based on the multi,licity of the codes, but it
is ultimately achieved by the ease ?ith ?hich the reader can 0i!nore0 certain ,a!es, this i!norin!
someho? bein! ,re,ared for and le!alised beforehand by the author himself ?ho has taken ,ains
to ,roduce a ,erforated te;t so that anyone 0ski,,in!0 the Sadian dissertations ?ill stay ?ithin the
truth of the Sadian te;t) 5&136
The dan!ers of intention are not intrinsic but in its objects) The te;t in ?hich Barthes realised that
the idea of the author is not a bane in itself is also the te;t in ?hich the deconstruction of
vraisemblable reaches its a,o!ee) 't is for this reason that SKN is the te;t of the death and the
return of the author)
0The Death of the Author0, as ?e have remarked, ?as the early ,ro!ramme of SKN) 'ndeed it mi!ht
have been called 0The Death of BalFac0 or 0The Death of the Realist Author0) 'n SKN, the death of
the author consists in readin! a!ainst BalFac0s intention to foist the illusion of the real u,on the
baro@ue and abyssal tale of the castrato and the scul,tor) To this end, Barthes uses the
considerable ,o?ers at his dis,osal to denature and denude 0Sarrasine0, to unveil all the artifices
and ruses throu!h ?hich it lies its ?ay to 0naturalness0) %uch has been ?ritten about the
strate!ies Barthes de,loys in this readin!, and he is often called to account for the va!ueness of
the distinction bet?een the readerly and the ?riterly, the lack of s,ecificity in his articulation of the
five codes, their overla,,in!, ine;haustiveness, and so on) But such criticisms are for most ,art
cavils) That SKN is a successful readin! is borne out by the fact that it is im,ossible to read
0Sarrasine0 innocently after Barthes) -e mi!ht read Dac@ues .acan0s 0Seminar on OThe #urloined
.etterO0, and admire its thesis 5or, for that matter, Derrida and Barbara Dohnson in re,ly to .acan6,
but it is not difficult thereafter to a,,roach #oe0s tale from a non:,sychoanalytic ,urvie?,
.acanian or other?ise) 3( -ith SKN, ho?ever, Barthes justifies his o,enin! hy,erbole$ 0-e shall
therefore star the te;t, se,aratin!, in the manner of a minor earth@uake, the blocks of si!nification
of ?hich readin! !ras,s only the smooth surface, im,erce,tibly soldered by the movement of
sentences, the flo?in! discourse of narration, the OnaturalnessO of ordinary lan!ua!e)038
"nlike any other of Barthes0s te;ts, SKN ?orks accretively$ it is a ?ar of attrition a!ainst the 0reality
effect0 in 0Sarrasine0) 't is ,erha,s because of this ine;orable for?ard momentum that commentary
on SKN rarely rises above the level of merely 0addin! ,itiful !raffiti to an immense ,oem0) 4+ The
best commentary on SKN ?ould indeed be its re,roductionG it belon!s to that class of ?ritin! that
,recludes any sort of faithful summary) -hat is interestin! from our ,oint of vie?, ho?ever, is that
SKN conjoins the t?o endurin! ,rinci,les of 0The Death of the Author0, these bein! the refusal of
an instrumentalist conce,tion of lan!ua!e, and the ,romise of the 0birth of the reader0, thou!h it
does so ?ith une;,ected results)
As Barthes journeys throu!h 0Sarrasine0 e;,osin! the devices and conventions and the vast
net?ork of cultural assum,tions that under,in and !enerate the 0naturalness0 of BalFac0s tale, he
reveals that ?hat calls itself the classic or readerly is a ?riterliness that dare not s,eak its name)
-hat is also revealed here is that in removin! 0Sarrasine0 from its scene of re,resentation and in
lod!in! it in the realm of the 0already ?ritten0, Barthes is, as he ,led!ed, ,roducin! the te;t,
re?ritin! it, so to s,eak, before BalFac, before the dead hand of the author be!an to overlay its
narrative structures ?ith a seemin!ly innocent rhetoric of naturalism) The deconstruction of
re,resentation and the birth of the reader thus run concurrently) -hat is retrieved from the real is
rendered unto the readerG as the readin! !ro?s, re,resentation recedes) And ?hen Barthes has
come as far as he can to?ard demonstratin! that 0it is no lon!er ,ossible to re,resent, to make
thin!s re,resentative0,4& ?hen he has come as close as anyone has to fulfillin! the ,romise of
the birth of the reader that closes 0The Death of the Author0, ?e mi!ht be for!iven for antici,atin!
the trium,hal declaration of the death of the author as achieved both in theory and in ,ractice)
Eet, this is ,recisely ?hat does not occur) As ?ith other mythical sacrifices, resurrection and
rebirth are not lon! in comin!) -hen a te;t no lon!er s,eaks the lan!ua!e of re,resentation, the
death of the author becomes !ratuitous) This is ?hy the death of the author need never be raised
in connection ?ith ?riterly te;ts, ?hy Barthes does not e;,lain ?hat ,ur,ose authorial e;tir,ation
mi!ht serve in the cases of =enet, the later Doyce, #roust, Bataille and others) This is ?hy, too,
Sade Fourier .oyola can attem,t to 0release Sade, Fourier, and .oyola from their bonds 5reli!ion,
uto,ia, sadism60, 586 and talk about the return of the author in the same breathG ?hy Sade, 0a
?riter and not a realistic author0, Sade ?ho 0al?ays sides ?ith semiosis rather than mimesis0 is
such an e;em,lary fi!ure in the rene?al of the author) 'f a te;t has been 0un!lued0 of its
referentiality, its author need not dieG to the contrary, he can flourish, become an object of
bio!ra,hical ,leasure, ,erha,s even a 0founder of lan!ua!e0) -hat Roland Barthes has been
talkin! of all alon! is not the death of the author, but the closure of re,resentation) -e need not
be sur,rised, then, that 0The Death of the Author0 belon!s to the earliest sta!es of SKN) >or that it
is at the end of SKNA?hen Barthes has amassed *&+ ,a!es and (8 diva!ations devoted to
returnin! the readerly to the ?riterly, the real to the irrealAthat the return of the author is
announced) -hen the scene of re,resentation has dissolved around him, BalFac can come back,
an author of te;ts, no lon!er a scribe of realityG his ?ork no more 0a channel of e;,ression0 but a
0?ritin! ?ithout referent0) 4* 't is for this reason that the death of the author and the annunciation
of his return can occur in such ,erversely close ,ro;imity) -ith re,resentation annulled, the
crimes of the author are absolved, and even the arch:realist 9onorL BalFac can receive a stay of
e;ecution) Barthes reco!nised as much over the course of a 0t?o:year seminar ) ) ) at the Ucole
,rati@ue des 9autes Utudes0,41 a seminar that is itself the time of the death of the author, the
interre!num bet?een SKN as ?ork:in:,ro!ress and realised ,rojectG the time s,annin! diva!ation
/2 50The %astery of %eanin!06, and diva!ation 8+ 50The BalFacian Te;t06, a mere moment)
Some forty years ,rior to Barthes0s ?ork of this ,eriod, the Russian theorist %ikhail Bakhtin
clearly sa? the need to o,,ose mimetic and univocal conce,tions of the te;t) For Bakhtin, the
traditional idea of authorshi, ?as entirely ina,,osite to the ?ork of ,roto:modernistic ?riters such
as Rabelais, S?ift and Dostoevsky, ?hose novels he characterised as ,oly,honic, that is, ?orks
in ?hich the authorial voice does not dominate other te;tual voices) Contrastin! such te;ts to the
monolo!ic voice to be found in traditional and e,ic forms, Bakhtin believed that this multivalent or
carnivales@ue countertraditionA?hich he terms %eni,,eanAreflects a dissolution of hierarchies
and the emer!ence of an anti:authoritarian discourse) Bakhtin ?as not, ho?ever, led therefrom to
,roclaim the death of the author, but instead reconceived the idea and function of the author in
accordance ?ith the modalities and structures of the ,oly,honic novel)
The author in this mode of ?ritin! ?as not to be conceived as a transcendent, annunciative bein!,
but rather as that voice amon!st the many ?hich holds to!ether the ,oly,honic strands of the
te;t0s com,osition, an author ?ho 0resides ?ithin the controllin! center constituted by the
intersection of the surfaces:faces0)42 >or either is the carnivales@ue author in any ?ay estran!ed
from the ?orkin!s of his te;t) Bakhtin0s ,osition, as he says, 0is not at all tantamount to assertin! a
kind of ,assivity on the ,art of the author0) To the contrary, ?ithin this %eni,,ean literature, the
0author is ,rofoundly active but this action takes on a s,ecific dialo!ic character0) 43 The author
does not need to be the =od of e,ic monolo!ism to be an author) Dostoevsky, he says, 0creates
not voiceless slaves 5as does Neus6, but rather free ,eo,le ?ho are ca,able of standin! beside
their creator, of disa!reein! ?ith him, and even of rebellin! a!ainst him)044 The renunciation of
the author:=od does not do a?ay ?ith the idea of authorshi,, nor im,ede the creativity of the
author and the intensity of his en!a!ement ?ith and ?ithin his te;t) -orkin! ?ith a distinction
bet?een ty,es of literature ?hich ,refi!ures Barthes0s delineation of the lisible and scri,tible,
Bakhtin thereby sho?ed ho? the conce,t of the author can be rene?ed ?ithout com,romisin! the
anti:re,resentational ethos of a ?riterly ?ritin!)
A similar ,ath ?as struck out u,on by Dulia Bristeva ?ho ,rovided ,sychoanalytic frames for the
historical bifurcation of literature into readerly and ?riterly modes)4/ Ada,tin! .acanian insi!ht to
Bakhtin0s distinction bet?een monolo!ic and ,oly,honic literature, Bristeva delineates t?o orders
of si!nification, the semiotic and symbolic) The semiotic is !overned by the maternal influence at
the ,re:<edi,al sta!e and is characterised by the use of ?ords not for their meanin! or ?hat they
re,resent but for their rhythm, intonation, musicality) Semiotic lan!ua!e thus arises from a
maelstrom of irrational si!nification to ?hich Bristeva !ives the =reek term chora) The symbolic
lan!ua!e, on the other hand, is the linear, syntactic and re,resentational discourse of socially
constituted reality ac@uired durin! the abatement of the <edi,us com,le;) For Bristeva, the ?ay
in ?hich the subject ne!otiates the <edi,al ,hase and the manner of its lan!ua!e ac@uisition
determines ?hich of these t?o modes of si!nification 5or in her ?ord si!nifiance6 ?ill characterise
its discourse and the ty,e of subject ,osition subse@uently ado,ted in relation to te;tuality) -here
identification has entirely abandoned the semotic flu; of the maternal lan!ua!e in favour of the
rational linearity of the symbolic order, the ?riter ?ill take u, the ,osition of the e,ic author or
unitary, self:,resent subject, ?hilst the ?riter ?ho has retained a stron! connection ?ith the
maternal chora ?ill achieve a fluid and motile insertion in his or her te;ts)
Alon! lines ,arallel to those laid do?n by Bakhtin, Bristeva sees this demarcation emer!e
historically in e,ic modes of ?ritin! ?hich ,resu,,ose a thetic, unitary consciousness e;,ressin!
the lo!ics of la? and 5symbolic6 order, and in the s,oradic irru,tion of a 5semiotic6 avant:!arde
?riterliness ?hich subverts the synta!matic, meanin!ful ,lane of lan!ua!e via abru,t dislocations
of synta; and literal meanin!) This subversive tradition is best e;em,lified in Bakhtin0s ,oly,honic
novelist and in the modern semioclasty of %allarmL, .autrLamont, Doyce and Artaud, all of ?hom
have mana!ed to reca,ture the musical, Dionysian illo!icalities of lan!ua!e) Such ?riters take u,
the ,osition of the 0subject in ,rocess0, a subject unstable ?ithin the order of discourse but
conse@uently free to chan!e, to insert itself ?ithin te;tuality ?ithout ac@uirin! the transcendental
solitude of the e,ic author) For Bristeva, as for Bakhtin, this carnivales@ue subject ac@uires
revolutionary ,otentialities ?ithin discourse ,recisely because of its motility, its ability to take u,
ne? and trans!ressive subject ,ositions)
-hilst neither Bristeva nor Bakhtin for?arded an e;haustive re?ritin! of the conce,t of
authorshi,, they evolved a sense of the author ?hich ke,t ,ace ?ith a chan!in! literary situation,
thus admittin! the crucial ,rinci,le that author:te;t relationshi,s are subject to variations both
historical and structural) %oreover, in o,,osin! both humanist and re,resentationalist vie?s of
the te;t and at the same time allo?in! for the insertion of the subject ?ithin discourse, their ?ork
does not conflate the methodolo!ical ,roject of fore!roundin! lan!ua!e ?ith the ontolo!ical
statement of the absence of the author from discourse) For the structuralists, and for the Barthes
of this ,eriod ho?ever, the removal of the subject be!an as a means to?ard lan!ua!e and ended
as its end) The dream of structuralism ?as to say this is ?hat the ?orld and its lan!ua!e are like0
?hen all it had ,ermitted itself to venture ?as 0this is ?hat the ?orld and its lan!ua!e ?ould be
like if there ?ere not subjectivity0) 4( And in attem,tin!Aat the brid!e of structuralism and
,oststructuralismAto di!nify this e;clusion, to confirm and justify it as a necessary absence
?hich inheres in the ?orld and the te;t, Barthes could find no ,ath u,on ?hich to strike out) 9o?
indeed could the removal of the author function as anythin! other than a ,rovisional reduction7
9o? could it be asserted other than in the manner that a s,eculative science ,rescribes only
?hat is true and not true of itself748
The Russian Formalists like?ise forbade recourse to the author in the interests of foundin! a
science of literature ?hich rejected the mimeticist vie? of lan!ua!e) By this e;clusion they ho,ed
to disemburden the te;t and criticism of the te;t of any ans?erability to 0contents0, of any
obli!ations to the aesthetics of re,resentation) 9o?ever, the further they ,ro!ressed in the
direction of a non:re,resentational theory and criticism, the more they came to find that their
researches ,ut the validity, and even the efficacy of authorial e;clusion under @uestion) Thus, in
time, the Russian Formalists ?ere to seek ?ays of reinscribin! the author ?ithout default on their
commitment to the autonomy of literary lan!ua!e, a ,rocess ?hich ?as continued by Bakhtin in
the latter sta!es of that movement) -hat the Formalists came to realiseAas Barthes did
some?hat belatedlyAis that the closure of re,resentation neither necessitates the e;clusion of
the author, nor can be achieved on its basis) The removal of the author o,ens a ,rovisional s,ace
?herein the methodolo!y can be develo,ed, but once the methodolo!y has been established, it
must either return to take stock of that ?hich it has e;cluded, make re,arations, revisions, or
continue to ne!lect the @uestion of the author at the cost of remainin! re!ional, selective,
inade@uate to the literary object)
The re,resentational aesthetic has been under attack at least since the time of %allarmL, and the
more radical critical schools to a,,ear durin! this century, those of the Russian Formalists, the
An!lo:American >e? Critics, the structuralists and deconstructionists, haveAto !reater and
lesser de!reesArejected mimesis in favour of te;tual lan!ua!e in and for itself) 'ndeed, it ?ould
not be the boldest stroke to su!!est that ?e have entered a ,ostre,resentational era$ certainly, in
any case, no:one any lon!er takes seriously the ideal of ,ure realism) Corres,ondin!ly modernist
and ,ostmodernist fiction has moved further and further from re,resentationalist modes) /+ The
theoretical reco!nition of this develo,ment has not only ,roceeded on the hi!h roads of
structuralism and ,oststructuralism, but is also to be found in the @uieter ?ork of conventional
aestheticians) Dohn 9os,ers0 %eanin! and Truth in the Arts is as !ood a !uide as any to the
inherent contradictions in the doctrine of re,resentation)/& The decline of re,resentation has
been si!nalled also in the re?orkin!s to ?hich %ar;ist critical theory has been subject in the last
@uarter:century) 9avin! moved beyond .ukcs0s reflection model, %ar;ist thou!ht has come to
assert that lan!ua!e is not so much e;,ressive as constitutive of social and cultural realities, a
,osition ?hich maintains the te;t0s interaction ?ith its historical and infrastructural conditions
?hilst avoidin! the corollary obli!ation to discover the ,rinci,les of that interaction in the
su,,osedly re,resentational function of te;tual lan!ua!e) The later ?ork of %ichel Foucault is
also of the !reatest si!nificance in the @uest for non:re,resentational structures by ?hich
te;tuality can be related to the social and ideolo!ical !round of its determination) -ith Dac@ues
Derrida and #aul de %an the denial of re,resentation takes the form of a thorou!h!oin!
e,istemolo!ical sce,ticism ?hich relentlessly @uestions the basis and validity of im,utin! any
,ro,erties of ,resence or re:,resentation to te;tuality) Barthes be!an his career by radically
redefinin! the %ar;ist relation to te;tuality, and the ?ork of recent %ar;ist revisionists can be
retraced to -ritin! De!ree Nero, as to the moment at ?hich lan!ua!e rather than its objects ?as
introduced as the determinin! factor in a literary te;t0s en!a!ement ?ith the social and historical
conditions of its emer!ence) .ater in his career, Barthes0s lifelon! hostility to re,resentation
be!an to ally itself cursorily ?ith the conclusions reached by Derrida and de %an, yet the reasons
for Barthes0s es,ousal of a lan!ua!e of ,ure differences could scarcely themselves be more
different) As ?e have seen, Barthes0s concerns are far from e,istemolo!icalG if anythin!, his
objection to re,resentation is moralistic) That is to say, that ?hat he s,ent a ?ritin! life
challen!in! is ?hat ?e mi!ht call the ethics of re,resentation, the ?ays in ?hich a society
transforms culture into nature and thereby stam,s its ,roducts ?ith the seal of authenticity)
Accordin!ly, he ?orks to e;,ose the concealed mechanisms by ?hich re,resentational ethos
im,oses itself, to dissi,ate vraisemblable, rather than to subject the ,hiloso,hy of lan!ua!e
under,innin! such an aesthetic to ri!orous scrutiny) This is the burden, too, of te;ts ?hich have
not concerned us here, %ytholo!ies in ,articular) Advance ,ointin! to your mask 5larvatus
,rodeo6, this is all Barthes finally asks of any system, any ?ork of art or literature, and it is for this
reason that his labours are finally more disentro,ic than iconoclastic)
'n <n Racine he had looked to criticism of the author, and had dis,uted its validity not on the
!rounds that the author ?as dead or irrelevant to criticism, but in ,oint of its dishonesty in
concealin! the essentially subjective nature of such an activity) Author:centred criticism, he
concluded, ?as as admissible as any other form of criticism ,rovided that it no lon!er contorted in
em,ty ,osturin!s of self:justification, so lon! as it became 0the mask of several livin!
obsessions70) /* 'n a ?ay, the return of the author traces such an itinerary, a movement to?ard a
freer, more fi!urative readin! ,ractice in ?hich the former cate!ories of consciousness, narrative,
ima!ination and the real are dis,laced by the body, the fra!ment, the ima!inary and the irreal, in
?hich criticism of the author no lon!er foists the illusion of the natural u,on itself and its readers)
.ike Bakhtin before him, Barthes0s return of the author takes the form of a certain re?ritin! of our
conce,tions of authorshi,, but one ?hich does not ,rescribe ?hat can and cannot be said about
the author, but rather calls into @uestion the manner of our sayin!) 9ence the return of the author
can be a return to the cardinal ,oints of auteurist criticismAcreativity in lan!ua!e, the author0s life
and ?ork) And Barthes ?as to submit the autobio!ra,hical to this revaluation as the birth of the
reader and the return of the author came to find themselves in yet further com,licity)
Autobio!ra,hies
) ) ) today the subject a,,rehends himself else?here, and 0subjectivity0 can return at another
,lace on the s,iral$ deconstructed, taken a,art, shifted, ?ithout anchora!e$ ?hy should ' not
s,eak of 0myself0 since this 0my0 is no lon!er 0the self7
Roland Barthes /1
'n the ,arable 0Bor!es and '0, Dor!e .uis Bor!es describes a division bet?een ,erson and author,
,rivate and ,ublic self) The tale is ostensibly told from the ,oint of vie? of the 0'0 of its title, the
everyday, em,irical self, he ?ho ?ill 0?alk throu!h the streets of Buenos Aires and sto, for a
moment, ,erha,s mechanically no?, to look at the arch of an entrance hall and the !rill?ork on
the !ate)0/2 This narrator re!ards Bor!es as the 0other one0, the one ?ho e;ists 0on a list of
,rofessors or in a bio!ra,hical dictionary0)/3 9e confesses that he lives 0only so Bor!es may
contrive his literature0)/4 The ,arable ends as thou!h these t?o as,ects of the self, at once so
near and so alien to one another, have finally come to!ether$ 0Eears a!o ' tried to free myself
from him and ?ent from the mytholo!ies of the suburbs to the !ames ?ith time and infinity, but
those !ames belon! to Bor!es no? and ' shall have to ima!ine other thin!s) Thus my life is a
fli!ht and ' lose everythin! and everythin! belon!s to oblivion or to him) ' do not kno? ?hich of us
has ?ritten this ,a!e)0// And this endin! contains a further t?ist) #erha,s, as ?ith 0the !ames
?ith time and infinity0, Bor!es has ?rested from the narrator the last of his belon!in!s, the very
voice of his autumnal lament, as 0Bor!es and '0 becomes yet another ?ork of the author, Dor!e
.uis Bor!es)
All this takes ,lace over the course of a sin!le ,a!e) Roland Barthes by Roland BarthesAthe first
of the trilo!y of autobio!ra,hical ?orks ,roduced by Barthes in the late &8/+sAsi!nals a similar
division in its title, and strives to maintain it over &(( ,a!es) There is the Barthes ?ho ?ill 0eat a
,lum, take a ,iss0, there is the 0R)B)0, the 0he0, and the 0'0) %uch is made of these four selves, but in
essence Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes is the book of the t?o subjects of its titleAthe Roland
Barthes ?ho is ?ritin!, and the Roland Barthes ?ho is ?ritten about) Throu!hout, Barthes takes
!reat ,ains to ,revent the ?riter of the autobio!ra,hy from mer!in! ?ith his subjectKobject$
' had no other solution other than to re?rite myselfAat a distanceAa !reat distance, here and
no? ) ) ) Far from reachin! the core of the matter, ' remain on the surface, for this time it is a
matter of 0myself0 5of the !o6G reachin! the core, de,th, ,rofundity, belon!s to others) 5&2*6
'n insistin! u,on, in cultivatin! this dehiscence, Roland Barthes ?ould seem to be breakin! the
timehonoured autobio!ra,hical contractAthat the self ?ritin! and the self ?ritten on should be
one and the same self) This has led many to see Roland Barthes as 0,seudo:autobio!ra,hy0, or
as announcin! the end of autobio!ra,hy) The fra!ment, 0The >atural0, relays this troublesome
diver!ence of subjects as ?ell as any other$
The illusion of the natural is constantly denounced ) ) )
-e mi!ht see the ori!in of such a criti@ue in the minority situation of R)B) himselfG he has al?ays
belon!ed to some minority, to some mar!inAof society, of lan!ua!e, of desire, of ,rofession, and
even of reli!ion ) ) ) ?ho does not feel ho? natural it is, in France, to be Catholic, married, and
,ro,erly accredited ?ith the ri!ht de!rees7 ) ) )
A!ainst this 0natural0, ' can rebel in t?o ?ays$ by ar!uin!, like a jurist, a!ainst a la? elaborated
?ithout me and a!ainst me ) ) ) or by ?reckin! the majority0s .a? by a trans!ressive avant:!arde
action) But he seems to remain stran!ely at the intersection of these t?o rejections$ he has
com,licities of trans!ressive and individualist moods) This ,roduces a ,hiloso,hy of the anti:
>ature ?hich remains rational, and the Si!n is an ideal object for such a ,hiloso,hy$ for it is
,ossible to denounce andKor celebrate its arbitrarinessG it is ,ossible to enjoy the codes even
?hile nostal!ically ima!inin! that someday they ?ill be abolished$ like an intermittent outsider, '
can enter into or emer!e from the burdensome sociality, de,endin! on my mood of insertion or of
distance) 5&1+:&6
This ,assa!e certainly ,oses a ,roblem of readin! in that it ?ould a,,ear to ,osit a multi,licity of
subjects) Eet, ?ere ?e to substitute first ,erson ,ronouns for the third ,erson, and to convert
re,orted s,eech into direct s,eech, the above fra!ment ?ould read @uite sim,ly as an
autobio!ra,hical meditation distin!uished mainly by its author0s acuity, and !ift for self:analysis) 't
is, therefore, in its ,ronominal economy that Roland Barthes is most markedly set off from
conventional forms of autobio!ra,hy$ 0The so:called ,ersonal ,ronouns$ everythin! ha,,ens
here, ' am forever enclosed ?ithin the ,ronominal lists$ 00'00 mobilise the ima!e:re,ertoire, OyouO
and OheO mobilise ,aranoia)0 5&4(6 9o?ever, in subvertin! this autobio!ra,hical eti@uette, Roland
Barthes does not break ?ith the dee, structures of the autobio!ra,hical rLcit) Rather, it en!a!es
?ith them in a more direct manner than does the customary autobio!ra,her) That the author of
the autobio!ra,hy and the subject of the autobio!ra,hy should cleave from one another is
inevitable) The author of an autobio!ra,hy cannot ,lainly be the subject of his ,ast) As %ikhail
Bakhtin ,uts it$
ven if the author:creator had created the most ,erfect autobio!ra,hy, or confession, he ?ould,
nonetheless have remained, in so far as he had ,roduced it, outside of the universe re,resented
?ithin it) 'f ' tell 5orally or in ?ritin!6 an event that ' have just lived, in so far as ' am tellin! 5orally
or in ?ritin!6 this event, ' find myself already outside of the time:s,ace in ?hich the event
occurred) To identify oneself absolutely ?ith oneself, to identify one0s 0'0 ?ith the 0'0 that ' tell is as
im,ossible as to lift oneself u, by one0s hair ) ) ) /(
ven !iven an ideal autobio!ra,hical scenarioAthat of the author ?ho is en!a!ed in a continual
and self:refle;ive autobio!ra,hical ?ritin!, a ,erennial diarist ?hose only concern is ?ith the act
of diarisin!Athere ?ould al?ays be a hiatus, both s,atio:tem,oral and ontolo!ical bet?een he
?ho ?rites, and ?hat is ?ritten) This division is inesca,able) <bviously, this is not to say that
there is no ,ossibility of commerce bet?een the t?o subjectsAfar from itAonly that these t?o
subjects cannot be re!arded as consubstantial in s,ace and time) Bakhtin is not the first to realise
this, nor is Barthes the first to incor,orate this ,roblematic division into the actual act of ?ritin! an
autobio!ra,hy) The !reat autobio!ra,hers, Au!ustine, %ontai!ne, Rousseau, Moltaire, all took
some account of this bifurcation) %ontai!ne ?rites$
' cannot fi; my subject ) ) ) ' do not ,ortray his bein!G ' ,ortray his ,assa!eG not a ,assa!e from
one a!e to another or ) ) ) from seven years to seven years, but from day to day, from minute to
minute) ' must suit my story to the hour, for soon ' may chan!e, not only by chance but also by
intention) 't is a record of various and variable occurrences, an account of thou!hts that are
unsettled and, as chance ?ill have it, at times contradictory, either because ' am then another
self, or because ' a,,roach my subject under different circumstances and ?ith other
considerations) 9ence it is that ' may ?ell contradict myself, but the truth ) ) ) ' do not
contradict)/8
'n order to stay ?ithin the truth of self:?ritin!, %ontai!ne must acce,t that the self ?ritten about is
no lon!er ,resent to the self ?ritin!) 'f ?e take account of the ,ersonal ,ronouns in this ,assa!e,
it is @uickly a,,arent that they t?ist bet?een %ontai!ne the author, and %ontai!ne the subject of
the autobio!ra,hy) The only substantial difference bet?een this o,eration and the ,ronominal
e;trava!ances of Roland Barthes is that %ontai!ne does not deem it necessary to tele!ra,h this
se,aration by substitutin! 0%)d)%)0, or such like, for those ,ersonal ,ronouns that si!nify the
%ontai!ne as theme of the ssays) That %ontai!ne then sou!ht to brin! these t?o subjects into a
certain accord does not mean that he had become any less a?are of their re@uisite diver!ence,
no more than Au!ustine ever lost si!ht of the fact that the ?riter of the Confessions ?as not of
one substance ?ith the seventeen:year:old ?ho entered the cauldron of Cartha!e) (+ But ?hilst
%ontai!ne sou!ht to think his ?ay throu!h this division, and Au!ustine contained it ?ithin a
narratonial distance, Barthes directs all ener!ies to maintainin! this breach at the level of the
utmost visibility) The fra!ments or 5auto6 bio!ra,hemes are subjected to the strate!y of
al,habetical orderin!, and the al,habetical se@uence is synco,ated so as to ?ard off the
,ossibility of any unintentional narrative emer!in! from the concatenation of fra!ments) This
re!imen of randomness is ,ro!rammed to ,revent any naive identification of the Bartheses) Eet
the te;t admits that this strate!y is not successful$
' have the illusion to su,,ose that by breakin! u, my discourse ' cease to discourse in terms of
the ima!inary about myself, attenuatin! the risk of transcendenceG but since the fra!ment ) ) ) is
finally a rhetorical !enre and since rhetoric is that layer of lan!ua!e ?hich best ,resents itself to
inter,retation, by su,,osin! ' dis,erse myself ' merely return, @uite docilely, to the bed of the
ima!inary) 5836
't is only at the close of Roland Barthes, ho?ever, that Barthes0s te;t can rela; its vi!ilance, and
allo? its t?o subjects to conver!e) .ike virtually all autobio!ra,hies, Roland Barthes offers a final
and d?indlin! ,romise of assi!nation, much like the one intimated at the end of 0Bor!es and '0)
Conventionally, as the tale0s tellin! dra?s to a close, the ,ast of the subject and the ,resent of the
?ritin! dra? ever closer, the te;t be!ins to talk of here, no?, for the future) Eet this moment is
al?ays already in recession, the vanishin! ,oint at ?hich the t?o subjects meet and as soon sli,
a?ay, as in #roust0s Recherche ?hich closes as its ?ritin! be!ins) This is one convention that
Roland Barthes cannot but affirm$
And after?ard7
A -hat to ?rite no?7 Can you still ?rite anythin!7
A <ne ?rites ?ith one0s desire, and ' am not throu!h desirin!)
5&((6
't is at this ,oint, and only at this ,oint, that ?e can confidently say that ?e do not kno? ?hich
subject has ?ritten this ,a!e, as it is, too, ?hen Au!ustine commends himself to his .ord =od at
the end of the Confessions, or Ste,hen Dedalus journeys into the e;ile in ?hich Dames Doyce
?as to ?rite A #ortrait of the Artist as a Eoun! %an) (&
This division of subjects does ,recisely the o,,osite of dis@ualifyin! Roland Barthes as
autobio!ra,hy) The only autobio!ra,hies that can elude this division are those that ,roceed
accordin! to the conviction that all time is ever,resent)(* 0-hat ri!ht0, Barthes asks, 0does my
,resent have to s,eak of my ,ast70, 5&*&6 and ans?ers this @uestion at another ,oint in the te;t
via another @uestion$ 0?hy should ' not s,eak of OmyselfO since this OmyO is no lon!er Othe self 0 07
5&4(6 As ?ith bio!ra,hy, as ?ith the idea of the oeuvre, Barthes has no objection to
autobio!ra,hy ?hen it is u,rooted from its naturalistic settin!, ?hilst it is acce,ted that the ,ast
subject of the te;t cannot be s,irited in all its reality into the here and no? of the te;t0s
com,osition) 't is a!ain the du,licities of re,resentation that are ,ut under @uestionG in this case,
the le!erdemain by ?hich the hand that ?rites seeks to efface itself in the interests of re:
,resentin! the ,ast as an immediate reality) To see the demise of autobio!ra,hy in Roland
Barthes is @uite sim,ly to affirm a !reatly sim,lified conce,tion of the autobio!ra,hical act, as
thou!h once the autobio!ra,hical becomes troublesome it disa,,ears, as thou!h ?hen a !enre
or mode of ?ritin! advertises its inherent ,roblematics it is thereby denyin! or destroyin! itself)
The fore!roundin! of the artifice in Tristam Shandy did not lead Mictor Shklovsky to infer the
death of the novel, rather he ,roclaimed Sterne0s ?ork 0the most ty,ical novel in ?orld
literature0)(1 Dac@ues Derrida, in his more recent ?ork, has ?arned a!ainst the tendency to
confuse the com,le;ities of autobio!ra,hy ?ith its 0im,ossibility0 or 0death0$
the line that could se,arate an author0s life from his ?ork ) ) ) becomes unclear) 'ts mark
becomes dividedG its unity, its identity becomes dislocated) -hen this identity is dislocated, then
the ,roblem of the autos, of the autobio!ra,hical, has to be totally redistributed ) ) ) one has to
ask ?hether one ?ill understand the autobio!ra,hical in terms of this internal border ) ) ) or
instead rely on the standard conce,ts ,revailin! throu!hout tradition) <nce a!ain, one is faced
?ith a division of the autos, of the autobio!ra,hical, but this doesn0t mean that one has to dissolve
the value of the autobio!ra,hical rLcit) Rather, one must restructure it other?ise on the basis of a
,roject that is also bio!ra,hical or thanato!ra,hical)(2
Derrida made these remarks at a 0Roundtable on Autobio!ra,hy0 follo?in! a ,a,er he delivered
on >ietFsche, and, indeed, it is unfortunate that neither he nor any other of the ,artici,ants
discussed Barthes0s te;t here, since Roland Barthes ?ould seem to match, ,oint for ,oint the
revaluation outlined$ the division of the autos, the redistribution of the autobio!ra,hical in terms of
the bio!ra,hical and thanato!ra,hicalA0' am s,eakin! about myself as thou!h ' ?ere more or
less dead0 5&4(6Aand the crosscuttin! of cor,ora, the body of ?ork and body of the ?riter)
'ndeed, this te;t ?ould seem to be leadin! the ?ay in the theory of the autobio!ra,hical, since, in
raisin! rather than seekin! to solve the ,roblems of self:life:?ritin!, it allo?s those ,roblems to
emer!e ?ith clarity, a clarity ?hich is not to be found in attem,ts to submit the autobio!ra,hical to
ri!id !eneric definitions, nor in the resistance of those ?ho find the ,roblems of the
autobio!ra,hical so verti!inous that they are led to conclude that no such thin! e;ists) And ?here
Barthes ?ill al?ays be a little ahead of the ,ure theoreticians of autobio!ra,hy is in ,roducin! a
te;t ?hich is at once a ri!orous criti@ue of the conventions and under!irdin! assum,tions of
autobio!ra,hical discourse, and itself an autobio!ra,hy of ,eculiar economy and richness) Those
?ho are interested ?ill discover that Barthes has never read the 9e!el to ?hom his theoretical
discourse made recourse, that he likes salad, cinnamon, =lenn =ould, havin! loose chan!e,
?alkin! in sandals, that he doesn0t like ?hite #omeranians, ?omen in slacks, %iro, tautolo!ies,
tele,honin!G that he had at one time intended to ?rite books ?ith the titles The Discourse of
9omose;uality, A .ife of 'llustrious %en, 'ncidentsG that, for him, there is never self:restoration
only self:?ritin!, that several e,isodes of ,re:,ubescent se;uality occurred in his !arden at
Bayonne, that he dreams of arisin! in the early mornin!) All this, and more, ?ithout ever, finally,
?ritin! Roland Barthes ,ar lui:mVme)
Derrida mi!ht also have had Roland Barthes in mind ?hen he ?rote of the eni!matic and fluid
boundary bet?een the ?riter0s life and ?ork$ 0This divisible borderline traverses t?o different
ObodiesO, the cor,us and the body, in accordance ?ith la?s ?e are only be!innin! to catch si!ht
of)0 (3 From the first ?ritten ,a!e of Roland Barthes, ?here it is saidA0you ?ill find here, min!led
?ith the Ofamily romanceO, only the fi!urations of the body0s ,rehistoryAof that body makin! its
?ay to?ard the labor and the ,leasure of ?ritin!0Ato the concludin! 0Anatomie0) the ideas of
?ritin! the body, and the body ?ritin!, dominate the discourse) 9o?ever, some?hat ty,ically,
Barthes, refuses to clarify either ?hat is meant or ?hat is at issue here) The fra!ment 0lli,sis0 is
both a beautifully direct and elli,tical e;am,le of this$
Someone @uestions him$ 0Eou ?rote some?here that ?ritin! ,roceeds throu!h the body$ can you
e;,lain ?hat you meant70 9e realises then ho? obscure such statements, clear as they are to
him, must be for many others) Eet the ,hrase is anythin! but meanin!less, merely elli,tical$ it is
an elli,sis ?hich is not su,,orted) To ?hich may be added here a less formal resistance$ ,ublic
o,inion has a reduced conce,tion of the bodyG it is al?ays, a,,arently, ?hat is o,,osed to the
soul$ any some?hat metonymic e;tension of the body is taboo) 5(+6
The idea of the body of the ?riter had been ?ith Barthes from the outset) 'n -ritin! De!ree Nero
it is said that style is biolo!icalG (4 %ichelet is concerned ?ith the themes of body in the
historian0s ?orkG in Sade Fourier .oyola, the oeuvre is seen as a body of ,leasure, and the
bio!ra,heme is likened to cremation ashesG in The #leasure of the Te;t, te;tuality is seen as the
site of an erotic communion of the bodies of reader and ?riter) Barthes is ?ell a?are that this
theme varies dramatically from te;t to te;t, thou!h this instability, he feels, is an inde; of its
si!nificance$
'n an author0s le;icon, ?ill there not al?ays be a ?ord:as:mana, a ?ord ?hose ardent, com,le;,
ineffable, and someho? sacred si!nification !ives the illusion that by this ?ord one mi!ht ans?er
for everythin!7 Such a ?ord is neither eccentric nor centralG it is motionless and carried, floatin!,
never ,i!eonholed, al?ays ato,ic 5esca,in! any to,ic6, at once remainder and su,,lement, a
si!nifier takin! u, the ,lace of every si!nified) The ?ord has !radually a,,eared in his ?orkG at
first it ?as masked by the instance of Truth 5that of history6, then by that of Malidity 5that of
systems and structures6G no? it blossoms, it flourishesG this ?ord:as:mana is the ?ord 0body0)
5&*86
Eet no sooner does Barthes disallo? the ?ord any fi;ed meanin! than he makes the most
darin!ly constative claim on its behalf$ 09o? does the ?ord become value7 At the level of the
body)0 5&1+6 <nce a!ain 0body0 arises via an 0elli,sis ?hich is not su,,orted0$ once a!ain Barthes
cunnin!ly tem,ts us to ask ?hat the 0body0 means or ?hat it does in his discourse)
Barthes declares that the ,rime influence on 5or 0interte;t of6 Roland Barthes is >ietFsche, and
the most influential >ietFschean te;t ?ill be cce 9omo ?ith ?hich Barthes0s autobio!ra,hy has
decidedly elective affinities) (/ cce 9omo, as ?ell as bein! a te;t ?hich forces a serious !eneric
revaluation of the autobio!ra,hical, is also the te;t in ?hich >ietFsche re,eatedly reca,itulates
his insistence on the biolo!istic, ,hysiolo!ical basis of the drive to kno?led!e) For >ietFsche, the
em,hasis on the body is avo?edly autobio!ra,hical, as it is ?ith Barthes, but it is also firmly tied
to a ,rimary ,hiloso,hical objective) >ietFsche utilised the theme of the body to conduct a
biolo!istic challen!e to Christian idealism ?hich he characterised as a slave morality, a fetterin!
of the stron! in health by the ?eak via the institution of other?ordly, s,iritual ideals) #art of the
revaluation of all values, as >ietFsche conceived it, ?as to deconstruct the duality mind:body, to
assert the biolo!ical as the source of all thou!ht, of all values and jud!ements) 'n assertin! the
body as the source of value, in mootin! 5?ith The #leasure of the Te;t6 a 0materialist theory of the
subject0, Barthes ?ould seem to be continuin! this as,ect of the >ietFschean revaluation)
Eet, even on this ,oint, Barthes is thorou!hly inconsistent) -ithin The #leasure of the Te;t, he
maintains the o,,osition bet?een mind and body ?hich no materialism can suffer$ 0The ,leasure
of the te;t is that moment ?hen my body ,ursues its o?n ideasAfor my body does not have the
same ideas ' do0,(( an idea that is ,er,etuated in various ?ays in Roland Barthes) <ne of
Barthes0s commentators, Roland Cham,a!ne, su!!ests that the insistence u,on the body is an
attem,t to reverse the traditional ,rivile!in! of consciousness over unconscious determinations in
literature, as indeed ?e mi!ht e;,ect it to be)(8 9o?ever, a!ain nothin! is to be that sim,le, for,
of all contem,orary theorists, Barthes is ,eculiarly uninterested in the unconscious, his concerns
bein! rather ?ith the surface ,lay of si!nification rather than the de,ths from ?hich it may have
emer!ed) Furthermore, the body in his ?orks dictates conscious scenarios, the fantasy rather
than the dream) Cham,a!ne, thou!h, also says that 0Barthes came to realise that ?ritin! is an
attem,t by the ?riter to make his body ,er,etual in time0, and this is far more ,ersuasive,
,articularly since Roland Barthes is the e,ic fulfilment of Sade Fourier .oyola0s desire$ 0?ere ' a
?riter, and dead, ho? ' ?ould love it if my life, throu!h the ,ains of some friendly and detached
bio!ra,her, ?ere to reduce itself to a fe? details, a fe? ,references, a fe? inflections, let us say$
to Obio!ra,hemesO ?hose distinction and mobility mi!ht !o beyond any fate and come to touch,
like ,icurean atoms, some future body, destined to the same dis,ersion)08+
-e notice that the return of the author came to be associated ?ith the mortality of the author, just
as 0The Death of the Author0 never took account of the author as anythin! other than a stran!e
deist abstraction inimical to hi!h ,oststructuralism) 'n attem,tin! to conjoin the body of ?ritin! to
the body ?ritin!A0The cor,us$ ?hat a s,lendid ideaT #rovided one ?as ?illin! to read the body in
the cor,us)0 5&4&6ARoland Barthes, for an instant, brin!s to!ether those ,arts of the author that
are destined to the most irrevocable sunderin!) Eet sunder they ?illAfor an author0s cor,us
outlives his body and its cor,seAas they did in the case of Roland Barthes) -ere ?e friendly,
detached and ,ainstakin! enou!h, and ?ere ?e to have ?ritten a 0.ife of Barthes0, ?e mi!ht at
some ,oint have said$
9is body$ subject of inscri,tions, of desire, of discourse, 0mana:?ord0G this body e;,ired a fe?
?eeks after bein! run do?n by a laundry truck on a ,edestrian crossin! outside the Sorbonne)
Barthes0s cor,us is as alive and as ?ell as that of any ,ost:?ar ?riter, as is his bio!ra,hy) The
theorist of the author0s death became a celebrity in France, an enthusiastic intervie?ee on
television, the radio, for ne?s,a,ersG he ?ent on to ?rite t?o confidently autobio!ra,hical ?orks,
te;ts ?hich ?ere not autobio!ra,hies but autobio!ra,hical, books of feelin!, im,ressions, of the
selfG he talked, ?e kno?, of ?ritin! a novel, a 0#roustian novel0) 8& ",on his death he became the
subject of many obituaries, most !racefully those ?ritten by Susan Sonta! ?ho described his
later ?ork as 0the most ele!ant, the most subtle and !allant of autobio!ra,hical ,rojects0)8*
Sonta!, too, ?ho had t?elve years earlier declared that 0only if the ideal of criticism is enlar!ed to
take in a ?ide variety of discourse, both theoretical and descri,tive, about culture, lan!ua!e and
contem,orary consciousness, can Barthes be ,lausibly called a critic)081 BalFac did not die as a
result of SKN) 9e is as alive no? as he ever has been since his death in &(3+, yetAthrou!h SKNA
the idea of the reader as ,roducer of the te;t ?as born) 9arold Bloom may or may not be ri!ht
?hen he says that ,ersonality 0cannot be voided e;ce,t by ,ersonality, it bein! an oddity
5,erha,s6 that liot and Barthes matter as critics because they are indeed critical
,ersonalities0,82 just as <scar -ilde may or may not have been ri!ht ?hen he ,ro,osed that
criticism is the only civilised form of autobio!ra,hy)83 Eet mi!ht ?e not venture that the birth of
the reader is not achieved at the cost of the death of the author, but rather at that of sho?in! ho?
the critic too becomes an author7
*
The Author and the Death of %an
Critical ,ositions ?hich ar!ue the irrelevance of the author ?ill invariably ,ro,ose determinist
theories if they are concerned to discover alternative models of the constitution of discourse) The
?ork of %ichel Foucault is no e;ce,tion) -ithin his ,rodi!ious te;t, The <rder of Thin!s 5&8446,
Foucault attem,ts the formidable task of ,resentin! a history of thou!ht ?ithin ?hich the role of
individual thinkers over some four hundred and fifty years of discourse is entirely subordinate to
im,ersonal forces) & The determinism that Foucault ,romul!ates is, su,erficially at least, akin to
%ar;ist criti@ue in that it is ,eriodised into self:re!ulatin! historical structures) The statements, the
te;ts, the ,hiloso,hical systems and sciences of any !iven era ?ill obey a ,rediscursive net?ork
of coherencies and rules of formation ?hich constitutes the most fundamental level of kno?led!e)
The similarities ?hich ?e ,erceive in the discourses of a ,articular era, and ?hich ?e rather
va!uely inter,ret as the s,irit or common ,ur,ose of an a!e, are, for Foucault, emanations of a
strict, ri!id, e,istemolo!ical substrate) This substrate is not to be confused ?ith Feit!eist or
?eltanschauun!, ?hich are sim,ly its visible emanations, in the form of the atmos,here in ?hich
thou!ht is conducted, or the community of moral, ethical and meta,hysical ,ers,ectives at a
,articular time) So far from bein! a ,aradi!m that has been su,erim,osed u,on an era, or an
analytic reduction of the mass of discourse, the e,istemolo!ical arran!ement is the !round and
,ossibility of thou!ht itself, the ,otency of ?hich the discourse of the a!e is an actualisation) To
this system of relations Foucault !ave the name e,istemeG to the science of its recovery,
0archaeolo!y0)
't is not the surface structures of history that are the object of archaeolo!ical research, but the
e,istemolo!ical foundations u,on ?hich the !reat s,ectacle of -estern discourse has been
constructed) At this level, the role of individual authors is no more than that of e,istemic
functionaries) <nce a!ain Foucault0s a,,roach sho?s affinities ?ith %ar;ist criti@ue in that it sees
ideas as the ,roduct rather than the motivation for historical chan!e) But ?hilst many %ar;ists
allo? for a certain inter,lay bet?een im,ersonal forces and immanent subjectivity, Foucauldian
archaeolo!y ,resents the ?ork of individual thinkers as entirely determined by the e,istemic
confi!uration) As Foucault ?rites of the Classical e,isteme$
it ?as the si!n system that linked all kno?led!e to a lan!ua!e, and sou!ht to re,lace all
lan!ua!es ?ith a system of artificial symbols and o,erations of a lo!ical nature) At the level of the
history of o,inions, all this ?ould a,,ear, no doubt, as a tan!led net?ork of influences in ?hich
the individual ,arts ,layed by 9obbes, Berkeley, .eibniF, Condillac, and the 0'deolo!ues0 ?ould be
revealed) But if ?e @uestion Classical thou!ht at the level of ?hat, archaeolo!ically, made it
,ossible, ?e ,erceive that the dissociation of the si!n and resemblance in the early seventeenth
century caused these ne? formsA,robability, analysis, combination, and universal lan!ua!e
systemAto emer!e, not as successive themes en!enderin! one another or drivin! one another
out, but as a sin!le net?ork of necessities) And it ?as this net?ork that made ,ossible the
individuals ?e term 9obbes, Berkeley, 9ume, or Condillac) 5416
.ike Foucault0s first ?ork, %adness and CiviliFation 5&84&6, The <rder of Thin!s acce,ts the
conventional demarcation of ,ost:%edieval history into the Renaissance, the Classical a!e, and
the modern a!e) * >or, of itself, is Foucault0s determination of the essential structures of
kno?led!e in these eras ,articularly radical) The Renaissance is seen to be constructed around
the scholastic theory of resemblancesG the Classical a!e around the theory of re,resentation and
the system of si!nsG the modern a!e to be com,assed by the ethic of subjectivity) -hat
distin!uishes Foucault0s treatment is the absolute and reci,rocal im,enetrability he assumes
bet?een these eras, his refusal of the ,ossibility of any si!nificant influence carryin! over from
one e,isteme to another) The e,istemi are fully coherent ?ithin themselves, and yet entirely
discontinuous ?ith each other) The homo!eneity of the e,isteme is therefore a factor of the
hetero!eneity of the e,istemi, and vice versa) There can be no thou!ht of man in the Classical
era, as e@ually there can be no thou!ht ?ithin the modern a!e ?hich is not, at base, thinkin! of
man)1 .ike?ise, the e,isterne of the Renaissance is constituted by the im,ossibility of thinkin!
?ithin the cate!ories of re,resentation, just as the Classical era is formed by the com,lete
disa,,earance of the theory of resemblances from its horiFons)
Conse@uently, just as the e,istemic arran!ement e;ercises absolute determinative ,o?er durin!
the era ?hich it under!irds, so too, ?hen it disa,,ears, it disa,,ears entirely, leavin! no residue
but the remotest nostal!ia for a lost order) 't is here that The <rder of Thin!s s?erves si!nally
from dialectical histories in that such models im,ly some conservation of the forms of the
su,erseded era throu!h the synthesis of its contradictions, or the ne!ation of the ne!ation) For
Foucault, ho?ever, the hiatus is absolute, irresolvable, acausal) ach e,isteme is the com,lete
cancellation of the ,revious e,isteme) This ,oint is a;ial, and all the more so in that it forms the
basis for The <rder of Thin!s0 most audacious and most memorable ,ro,osition, that of the death
of man)
<n Foucault0s account, man only came into bein! as the subject of kno?led!e in &(++, and this
o,enin! is marked by Bant ?ho introduced the anthro,olo!ical @uestion to ,hiloso,hical
reflection) 2 9o?ever, the centrality accorded to man in the ne? arran!ement of kno?led!e
established not the unity of the subject but his division) 'ndeed this division arises as soon as the
Bantian @uestion 0-hat is man70 is asked, for both an interro!ated and an interro!atin! subject
are immediately and inherently ,osited) The subjects occu,y, res,ectively, the roles of the
em,irical object of kno?led!e, and the elevated subject ?ho is the house or the condition of
,ossibility for that kno?led!e) -ithin the ,hrase 0subject of kno?led!e0 the !enitive is therefore
double but contradictory such that man becomes 0a stran!e em,irico:transcendental doublet ) ) )
a bein! such that kno?led!e ?ill be attained in him of ?hat renders all kno?led!e ,ossible0) 51&(6
This conflict bet?een the transcendental and the intra?orldly is also reflected in man0s ,recarious
relationshi, ?ith the unthou!ht, for the further modern consciousness has ,robed the underlyin!
reality of thin!s, the more it has unearthed of its other in the forms of the in:itself, social
determinations, and the unconscious) Throu!h its advances, the soverei!n co!ito serves to
illumine ever !reater reaches of the darkness ?ithin ?hich it is en!ulfed)3 As Foucault ,uts it, in a
sublime formula$ 0modern thou!ht is advancin! to?ards that re!ion ?here man0s <ther must
become the Same as himself) 51*(6 But Foucault does not actually ar!ue the end of man on the
basis of these intrinsic contradictions in the anthro,olo!ical arran!ement$ rather such
contradictions are held to be inau!urally constitutive of the era of man) The ar!ument for the
death of man is to ,roceed on @uite different lines) Sim,le lines, ?hich run as follo?s) 'f man ?as
only constituted in &(++, if he is a 0recent invention0 contem,oraneous ?ith the modern e,isteme,
then 5archaeolo!ically6 it must be that once the modern e,isteme is over, man ?ill disa,,ear
every bit as surely as did the Classical theory of re,resentation at the end of the ei!hteenth
century) 'n the 0#reface0 this is stated directly$
Stran!ely enou!h, manAthe study of ?hom is su,,osed by the naive to be the oldest
investi!ation since SocratesAis ,robably no more than a kind of rift in the order of thin!s, or, in
any case, a confi!uration ?hose outlines are determined by the ne? ,osition he has so recently
taken u, in the field of kno?led!e) -hence all the chimeras of the ne? humanisms, all the facile
solutions of an 0anthro,olo!y0 understood as a universal reflection on man, half:em,irical, half:
,hiloso,hical) 't is comfortin!, ho?ever, and a source of ,rofound relief to think that man is only a
recent invention, a fi!ure not yet t?o centuries old, a ne? ?rinkle in our kno?led!e, and that he
?ill disa,,ear a!ain as soon as that kno?led!e has discovered a ne? form) 5;;iii6
9o?ever, this ,role,tic summary fails to re!ister the force of im,lication in Foucault0s te;t, its
consistently subtle and !uarded hints that this disa,,earance is in the offin!) ven as he ?rites,
si!ns are abroad 5the unification of lan!ua!e in structural analyses a!ainst its dis,ersion in
subjectivity, to!ether ?ith more arcane ,ortents such as the irru,tion of desire in discourse6 that
another e,istemic cataclysm is bre?in!, that the !round is once more stirrin! under our feet) 'f
this is soAand Foucault does everythin! to su!!est that it isAthen man ?ill be lost to kno?led!e
in a movement not only inevitable but e;,editious) 'ndeed at one ,oint the te;t is moved so far as
to say that$ 0't is no lon!er ,ossible to think in our day other than in the void left by man0s
disa,,earance)0 512*6 The thou!ht of the &84+s thus finds itself at the crossin!, ,oised in
,ros,ect of the end of anthro,ocentrism and the be!innin! of a counterhumanist a!e) 't is at this
,oint that the story of The <rder of Thin!s ends, and its ?ritin! be!ins)
The idea of man as the author of his o?n ?orks is hereby ,rey to a double assault) 'n the first
,lace, the role of individuals in the ,roduction of discourse is considered ne!li!ible in res,ect of
the immanent rules of formation ?hich !overn the ,arameters and systematicity of the entire
archive of a !iven historical ,eriod) For the second, the recently constituted e,isteme in ?hich
man is fi!ured as the subject of his kno?led!e, of his ?ritin!, of his actions and their history, is
seen to be comin! to a close$ 0%an0, conceived of as subject or object, is 0in the ,rocess of
,erishin!0) 51(46 <ur concern ?ill be ?ith these t?o deathsAthose of author and manAand later
?ith the @uestion as to ?hether they are one and the same death) 'nitially, thou!h, ?e ?ill be
concerned to follo? the transindividual ,rece,t as it functions ?ithin The <rder of Thin!s, and
then to chart a re:entry of the author into this te;t) T?o archaeolo!ical o,erations involvin! the
author are thereby ,ostulated, those of e;clusion and inclusion, o,erations ?hich ?e ?ill mark by
the indices 0Descartes0 and 0>ietFsche0 res,ectively) -e ?ill also attem,t to ar!ue that these
o,erationsAin ,rinci,le so differentA?ork to?ard a common end)
Co!ito And The Birth <f %an
", to %erleau:#onty there is almost no French ,hiloso,her of the modern ,eriod ?ho ?as not, in
the most fundamental sense, 0Cartesian0)
Dames die 4
Discourse ) ) ) is so com,le; a reality that ?e riot only can, but should, a,,roach it at different
levels and ?ith different methods)
%ichel Foucault/
",on ,ublication of The <rder of Thin!s, one of its ,assa!es in ,articular attracted considerable
attention, an attention certainly in e;cess of its content and, ,erha,s also, of the seriousness ?ith
?hich it ?as intended) 0At the dee,est level of -estern kno?led!e0, Foucault ?rote, 0%ar;ism
introduced no real discontinuity ) ) ) %ar;ism e;ists in nineteenth:century thou!ht like a fish in
?aterG that is, it is unable to breathe any?here else)0 5*4&P*6 %ar;ism, he continues, 0may have
stirred u, a fe? ?aves and caused a fe? surface ri,,lesG but they are no more than storms in a
children0s ,addlin! ,ool)0 5*4*6 These contentions s?iftly met ?ith am,le and indi!nant redress
from the French left, as, too, 9e!el0s absence from archaeolo!y ?as contested by certain ,arties)
Foucault0s dismissive treatment of Descartes, too, has often been noted, but has yet to be
subjected to serious scrutiny)
A,,roachin! The <rder of Thin!s, a central te;t by a thinker ?hoAin his o,,osition to the
constitutive role of consciousness, to dualism, rationalism, the autonomy of the subjectAis so
manifestly anti:Cartesian, ?e mi!ht be for!iven for antici,atin! some declaration of the necessity
of breakin! ?ith the Cartesian influence that has for so lon! held s?ay over French ,hiloso,hy)
But the idea of a continuous tradition of -estern thou!ht is ,recisely ?hat The <rder of Thin!s is
contracted to resist at every turn) Descartes is a fi!ure constituted in the interstices of a s,ecific
confi!uration of kno?led!e, the Classical system of re,resentation, and there can be no
trans,osition of the ideas of the Discourse on %ethod or the %editations into any era not
!overned by this arran!ement) The ,hiloso,hy of Descartes is se,arated from the modern
e,isteme by an unbrid!eable rift in the order of thin!s ?hich occurred at the be!innin! of the
nineteenth century ?hen Classical re,resentation disinte!rated allo?in! the anthro,olo!ical era
to commence) 'f the thou!ht of The <rder of Thin!s is then anti:Cartesian, it is not so in the sense
of discoverin! a form of thou!ht ?hich evades or challen!es the Cartesian e,istemolo!y, but
rather in that it denies that there is any such thin! as an endurin! Cartesianism at all) 't is, ?e
mi!ht say, 0aCartesian0)
Foucault does ,ay a certain tribute to Descartes, thou!h strictly as his discourse flourished in situ)
The criticism, in the Re!ulae, of the Renaissance theory of resemblances is seen as an im,ortant
and e;em,lary moment in the transition to the Classical system of re,resentations) ( But
Descartes0 contribution to the Classical order itself is held to be of no es,ecial si!nificance$ 0This
ne? confi!uration may, ' su,,ose, be called rationalism00G one mi!ht say, if one0s mind is filled
?ith ready:made conce,ts, that the seventeenth century marks the disa,,earance of the old
su,erstitious or ma!ical beliefs and the entry of nature, at lon! last, into the scientific order)0 5326
T?o ,a!es later Foucault ?rites$ 0"nder cover of the em,ty and obscurely incantatory ,hrases
00Cartesian influenceO or O>e?tonian modelO, our historians of ideas are in the habit of ) ) )
definin! Classical rationalism as the tendency to make nature mechanical and calculable)0 5346
The Cartesian and >e?tonian discourses, so far from bein! central to an understandin! of the
Classical science of order are rather considered to be obstacles to the study of this arran!ement
at its dee,est level) Foucault then ,roceeds to de,ose Descartes and >e?ton at a sin!le stroke)
%athematics and mechanics, it is ar!ued, had little im,act on Classical science of order) -hat is
claimed, sim,ly, is that since there are no traces of mathematicisation or mechanisation in the
emer!ent em,irical sciences of !eneral !rammar, natural history, and the analysis of ?ealth, and
since these ne? discourses did reflect the science of order, then the mathematics and mechanics
of Descartes and >e?ton are lateral and nu!atory in res,ect of the fundamental structure of
classical science)8 Foucault0s reasonin! here is ?oefully e;i!uous, and it is easy to see ho? this
syllo!ism could be reversed to declare the irrelevance of the ne? em,iricisms)&+ >onetheless
this disen!a!ement is achieved 5ho?ever tardily6 and Foucault develo,s his com,ellin! analysis
of the Classical A!e untroubled by the Cartesian @uestion)
As it ?ould ha,,en, it is only ?hen Foucault comes to de,ict the modern era that the !host of this
re,ression comes to haunt The <rder of Thin!s) This may seem sur,risin! in that archaeolo!y
canonically rejects the ,ossibility of conce,tual e;chan!e bet?een e,istemi, and the more so
since Descartes belon!s to the earliest sta!es of the Classical ,eriod and is therefore as far
removed from modernity as a Classical thinker mi!ht be) Eet ?hile it is ambitious enou!h to
disconnect Cartesianism from the foundin! of a Classical science of order, it is still more so to
declare its irrelevance to the narrative that Foucault im,oses u,on the nineteenth and t?entieth
centuries) -hat does it mean, in a te;t concerned ?ith the birth and death of the subject of
kno?led!e to disre!ard the Cartesian co!ito7 To talk of man arrivin!Aas soverei!n and
transcendental subjectAonly in &(++ and ?ith the Bantian analytic7 To disconnect the co!ito
from any ideas ?e mi!ht have had about man:as:subject7
Absent throu!hout the discussion of the Classical e,isteme, the co!ito is at last brou!ht for?ard
as Foucault locates the ,lace of the Bin!, the enthronement of man as soverei!n subject and
s,ectator ?ithin the lacuna left by the breakdo?n of Classical re,resentation) But brou!ht forth
not as that ?hich lay dormant for one and a half centuries, not as a ,rinci,le that mi!ht have
!uided 'mmanuel Bant in his search for the transcendental conditions of kno?led!e$ rather, these
t?o subjects, the Cartesian co!ito and the Bantian transcendental e!o, are to be re!arded as
radically other, formulations ?hose similarities are entirely su,erficial$
Classical lan!ua!e, as the common discourse of re,resentation and thin!s, as the ,lace ?ithin
?hich nature and human nature intersect, absolutely e;cludes anythin! that could be a 0science
of man0) As lon! as that lan!ua!e ?as s,oken in -estern culture it ?as not ,ossible for human
e;istence to be called in @uestion on its o?n account, since it contained the ne;us of
re,resentation and bein!) The discourse that, in the seventeenth century, ,rovided the link
bet?een the 0' think0 and the 0' am0 ?as accom,lished in the li!ht of evidence, ?ithin a discourse
?hose ?hole domain and functionin! consisted in articulatin! one u,on the other ?hat one
re,resents to oneself and ?hat is) 't cannot therefore be objected to this transition either that
bein! in !eneral is not contained in thou!ht, or that the sin!ular bein! as desi!nated by the 0' am0
has not been interro!ated or analysed on his o?n account) <r rather, these objections may ?ell
arise and command res,ect, but only on the basis of a discourse ?hich is ,rofoundly other, and
?hich does not have for its raison d0etre the link bet?een re,resentation and bein!) 51&&P&*6
=iven the immense difficulties of ,er,etratin! an absolute dissociation of the Cartesian co!ito and
the modern idea of the subject of kno?led!e, and !iven the haste ?ith ?hich this thesis is
dis,ensed, Foucault ?rites ?ith considerable felicity) 9is ar!ument, too, is clear) 0' think0 is
e@uivalent to re,resentationG 0' am0, naturally, to bein!) 'n the Classical e,isteme re,resentations
?ere inse,arable from 0the livin!, shar,, ,erce,tible ,resence of ?hat they re,resent0, 5*4*6 the
order of ?ords ?as fully trans,arent to the order of thin!s, the structures of ,erce,tion one ?ith
the forms of their ,erce,ts) 'n linkin! the co!ito to the sum, Descartes is doin! no more than link
that ?hich the historical a ,riori of Classical thou!ht had conjoined in advance and in antici,ation
of Descartes, and of his 0Second %editation0) For Foucault0s Bant, ho?ever, the situation ?as of a
com,letely different order) The transcendental subject arose from the abru,t, ,rofound and
irrevocable divorce bet?een re,resentation and bein!, consciousness and its objects) Thus any
jud!ement ,assed u,on the co!ito ?hich assumes a hiatus bet?een the re,resentin! subject and
the alle!ed objects of its re,resentation belon!s to a Bantian or ,ost:Bantian e,istemolo!y, and
thus thorou!hly contravenes the essential e,istemic conditions of the co!ito0s articulation) For ?e
of the nineteenth and t?entieth centuries, ?e ?ho live far beyond the unity of re,resentation and
bein!, it is no lon!er ,ossible to conceive or ima!inatively reca,ture such an order) Bant0s criti@ue
submitted ?hat ?as un,roblematically assumed in CartesianismAthat 0nature and human nature
intersect0Ato the most em,hatic sce,ticism) For Descartes, for ?hom re,resentation and bein!,
nature and human nature, ?ere one, ,roblems of this order did not e;ist) >ot, that is, until ?e turn
to the ,a!es in ?hich the co!ito ?as first constructed)
The ,a!es that form Descartes0 0Second %editation0 are ,robably the most scrutinised of all
,hiloso,hical demonstrations, and it is therefore very ,er,le;in! that %ichel Foucault should ?ork
this ,articular inter,retation u,on them) Far from restin! on the sim,le identity of re,resentation
and bein!, the formulation of the co!ito be!ins from subjectin! the assum,tion that the mind has
any objects to re,resent to absolute sce,ticism$
verythin! ' have acce,ted u, to no? as bein! absolutely true and assured, ' have learned from
or throu!h the senses) But ' have sometimes found that these senses ,layed me false, and it is
,rudent never to trust entirely those ?ho have once deceived us) && Such a sce,ticism does not
halt at @uestionin! the e;istence of the e;terior ?orld but elicits doubt as to the e;istence of the
subject ?ho doubts) But this second ,hase of doubt, in many res,ects the more drastic of the
t?o, is the more remediable ?ithin the Cartesian theory of kno?led!e) The evil demon, as ?e
kno? so ?ell, is eluded because his deceits can only take effect u,on a bein! ?ho is bein!
deceivedG even if ' am deluded as to the e;istence of everythin! around me, and to the form,
nature and @uality of my o?n e;istence, ' am nonetheless the bein! ?hich subsists, suffers and
affirms itself in its deluded sense of selfhood) As it is ?ritten$
' had ,ersuaded myself that there ?as nothin! at all in the ?orld$ no sky no earth, no minds or
bodiesG ?as ' not therefore, also ,ersuaded that ' did not e;ist7 >o indeedG ' e;isted ?ithout
doubt, by the fact that ' ?as ,ersuaded, or indeed by the mere fact that ' thou!ht at all) But there
is some deceiver both very ,o?erful and very cunnin!, ?ho constantly uses all his ?iles to
deceive me) There is therefore no doubt that ' e;ist if he deceives meG and let him deceive me as
much as he likes, he can never cause me to be nothin!, so lon! as ' think ' am somethin!) So
that, after havin! thou!ht carefully about it, and havin! scru,ulously e;amined everythin!, one
must then, in conclusion, take as assured that the ,ro,osition$ ' am, ' e;ist, is necessarily true,
every time ' e;,ress it or conceive of it in my mind) &*
>othin!, ?hatsoever, is herein ,resu,,osed of the connection bet?een re,resentation and bein!)
-hat the conjunction of the 0' think0 and the 0' am0 attests is that e;istence can be validated in
com,lete inde,endence of the veracity or even the e;istence of any re,resentations at all) ven if
this ?orld, these hands, these eyes, this chair:beside:the:fire in ?hich ' sit, are all void, '
nonetheless, as thinkin! subject, e;ist) The co!ito does not be!in from the connection bet?een
re,resentation and bein!, nor does it 5of itself6 link re,resentation and bein!) For this immenseA
if not im,ossibleAtask, an a!ency vastly more ,o?erful is summoned, and it is thus that the
meditatin! subject ,roceeds to construct an ontolo!ical ar!ument for the e;istence of =od)&1 Eet
even from here, havin! established these t?o mi!hty certitudes, Descartes still did not feel that
his re,resentations ?ere to be trusted) <nly innate ideas, self:evident truths, such as those of
mathematics, and ideas that ,ossess clarity and distinctness 5e)!) the la?s of ,hysical bodies6
are vouchsafed by and for the subject since the senses are 0accustomed to ,ervert and confound
the order of nature0, the ?orld they re,resent remainin! 0most obscure and confused0, and
necessarily unkno?n to the kno?er) &2
As is evident, the inverse of Foucault0s ,ro,osition not only can, but must be averred by a readin!
of the %editations$ only a discourse ?hich could not assume the unity of re,resentation and bein!
could be driven to link the 0' think0 and the 0' am0, for if re,resentation and bein! ?ere one, there
could be no doubt as to the verity of the re,resentations that the meditatin! subject makes to
himself, and thus no necessity for the ?ork of the co!ito to !et under?ay) >either, if ?hat
Foucault says ?ere the case, ?ould the co!ito re@uire the deus e; machina to !uarantee its
re,resentations, nor ?ould non:re,resentational truths be the only truths thus !uaranteed) 'ndeed
the co!ito, in itself, @uestions ?hether there is any such thin! as re,resentation)&3 The subject
doubts the e;istence of all ,henomena outside itself, even the body in ?hich it is ,ur,ortedly
housed, and re,resentation, understood in ?hatever sense, obviously cannot be in the absence
of objects) As The <rder of Thin!s itself ,rescribes$ 0only jud!ements derived from e;,erience or
em,irical observations can be based u,on the contents of re,resentation)0 5*2*6 And evidence,
the em,irical, is ?hat the %editations refuses at every sta!e) 't is, Descartes says, by 0the li!ht of
reason0 that he attem,ts throu!hout to ,roceed, a strictly non:em,irical, self:evidencin! reason
?hich neither trusts nor recourses to the contents of re,resentation) 't is no coincidence either
that, in seekin! to ,rove the e;istence of =od, the ar!uments for?arded by the 0Third %editation0
?ere not a ,osterioriAsuch as the ar!ument from desi!n by ?hich it is asserted that =od
re,resents himself in the ?orldAbut a ,riori formulations)&4
The <rder of Thin!s thus delivers a readin! of the Cartesian co!ito utterly at variance ?ith its
construction in the %editations) The 0' think0 is connected ?ith re,resentation ?hen, in the
Cartesian demonstration, the 0' think0 is de,rived of any necessary connection ?ith its
5,resu,,ositional6 objects of re,resentation) Foucault kno?s these thin!s as ?ell as any, yet to
!rant Cartesianism its customary dues, to connect, as in the mass of ,hiloso,hical histories, the
Cartesian and Bantian subjects ?ould disturb both the inte!rity of the Classical e,isteme in ?hich
the subject is necessarily absent, and that of the modern e,isteme in ?hich soverei!n subject
0%an0 arrives as an absolutely un,recedented fi!ure) 'f any continuity ?ere to be allo?ed bet?een
the t?o subjects then either certain ,remonitory ,rivile!es ?ould be accorded to Descartes, or the
e,istemi ?ould relin@uish their status as entirely distinct, historical structures$ both of ?hich, on
the face of it, ?ould seem to amount to one and the same concession) But Descartes, so casually
,assed over in the era to ?hich he belon!ed, is to a,,ear once more in Foucault0s account of
modernity) And ?e should not be sur,rised that this rea,,earance takes ,lace in the conte;t of
9usserlian ,henomenolo!y, nor that it is the differences rather than the similarities bet?een the
co!ito of Descartes and that of 9usserl ?hich The <rder of Thin!s is destined to declare$
't may seem that ,henomenolo!y has effected a union bet?een the Cartesian theme of the co!ito
and the transcendental motif that Bant had derived from 9ume0s criti@ueG accordin! to this vie?,
9usserl has revived the dee,est vocation of the -estern ratio, bendin! it back u,on itself in a
reflection ?hich is a radicalisation of ,ure ,hiloso,hy and a basis for the ,ossibility of its o?n
history) 'n fact, 9usserl ?as able to effect this union only in so far as transcendental analysis had
chan!ed its ,oint of a,,lication 5the latter has shifted from the ,ossibility of a science of nature to
the ,ossibility for man to conceive of himself6, and in so far as the co!ito had modified its function
5?hich is no lon!er to lead to an a,odictic e;istence, startin! from a thou!ht that affirms itself
?herever it thinks, but to sho? ho? thou!ht can elude itself and thus lead to a many:sided and
,roliferatin! interro!ation concernin! bein!6) #henomenolo!y is therefore much less the
resum,tion of an old rational !oal of the -est than the sensitive and ,recisely formulated
ackno?led!ement of the !reat hiatus that occurred in the modern e,isteme at the turn of the
ei!hteenth and nineteenth centuries) 'f ,henomenolo!y has any alle!iance, it is to the discovery
of life, ?ork and lan!ua!eG and also to the ne? fi!ure ?hich, under the old name of man, first
a,,eared less than t?o centuries a!oG it is to interro!ation concernin! man0s mode of bein! and
his relation to the unthou!ht) 51*36
.ike so much of The <rder of Thin!s this ,assa!e is com,act, cleverly scul,ted, and seemin!ly
brimful ?ith si!nificance) 9o?ever, the litotic ar!ument is far from achievin! the finality ?hich it
arro!ates to itself) Ada,ted to syllo!ism, it states that$ firstly, ?hat a,,ears to be a Bantian le!acy
0has shifted from the ,ossibility of a science of nature to the ,ossibility for man to conceive of
himselfG secondly, the 9usserlian co!ito differs essentially from that of Descartes in that it no
lon!er leads 0to an a,odictic e;istence0 but to a 0many:sided and ,roliferatin! interro!ation
concernin! bein!0G and thirdly, 0therefore0, ,henomenolo!y does not re,eat or synthesise
Cartesian and Bantian themes, and has far more in common ?ith the discourse on life, labour
and lan!ua!e ?hich a,,eared at the turn of the ei!hteenth and nineteenth centuries) Thus ?e are
to think that ?hat ?as said earlierA0the modern co!ito is as different from Descartes0 as our
notion of transcendence is remote from Bantian analysis0 51*26Ahas been demonstrated) Eet
even !iven these @uestionable ,remises, it is difficult to see ho? they could necessitate the
conclusion, to see ?hy ?e must therefore re!ard 9usserl0s Cartesian %editations as havin! more
common !round ?ith the ?ork of Cuvier, Bo,, and Ricardo than ?ith the %editations of
Descartes) A !reat deal more in the ?ay of e;,lanation is re@uired, but ?hat is offered is a further
0conclusion0 from the above) Foucault directly continues$
This is ?hy ,henomenolo!yAeven thou!h it ?as first su!!ested by ?ay of anti:,sycholo!ism, or,
rather, ,recisely in so far as, in o,,osition to anti:,sycholo!ism, it revived the ,roblem of the a
,riori and the transcendental motifAhas never been able to e;orcise its insidious kinshi,, its
simultaneously ,romisin! and threatenin! ,ro;imity, to em,irical analyses of manG it is also ?hy,
thou!h it ?as inau!urated by a reduction to the co!ito, it has al?ays been led to @uestions, to the
@uestion of ontolo!y) The ,henomenolo!ical ,roject continually resolves itself, before our eyes,
into a descri,tionAem,irical des,ite itselfAof actual e;,erience, and into an ontolo!y of the
unthou!ht that automatically short:circuits the ,rimacy of the 0' think0) 51*3P46
The inference ?e are to make here is, ,resumably, that since the intentionality of consciousness,
as understood by 9usserl, must be consciousness of somethin!, then ,henomenolo!y ?as
bound to ,redicate an e;tramental, em,irical realm) But the ,redication of such a realm is by no
means tantamount to its em,irical descri,tion, and to call a system 0em,irical0 ?hich 5ho?ever
unsuccessfully6 brackets off that realm in the interests of elaboratin! a ,ure ,hiloso,hy of
consciousness, involves a considerable e;tension of ?hat ?e understand by an em,irical
science) By the same criteria, any system ?hich incor,orates some acce,tance of a real, ,hysical
?orld e;terior to consciousness ?ould be em,irical, or nearly so) <nly ,ure mathematics, formal
lo!ic and e;treme immaterialist and soli,sistic theories ?ould elude this definition) And Foucault
sho?s no interest in e;,lainin! @uite ?hat is meant hereG as earlier, the dissociation is hurried
and didactic) Certainly there is nothin! in this ,assa!e 5?hose t?o ,arts have been divided
above6 to su!!est that ,henomenolo!y has any stron!er alle!iances than to the scheme of The
<rder of Thin!s) #henomenolo!y is akin to the em,irical sciences, and not to the co!ito of
Descartes, because Foucault ?ishes us to believe man and his em,irical study commenced in
&(++$ beneath the curli@ues and clauses, there is no other ,ro,osition)
This is not to say that it is mistaken, or ?ay?ard to ,oint u, the differences bet?een the co!ito of
9usserl and that of Descartes) 't ?ould, indeed, be naively ahistorical to re!ard transcendental
,henomenolo!y as a sim,le continuation, or ?orse, com,letion of the Cartesian ,roject, and to
thereby seal over the vast interre!num that se,arates the seventeenth century of the %editations
from the t?entieth century of 9usserlian ,henomenolo!y) And it ?ould be e@ually foolish to
su,,ose that the ,roblems of the unthou!ht that faced Descartes ?ere of the same cast as those
confrontin! theories of consciousness today) Eet to @uestion this continuity is not to erase the
?ealth of irresistible similarities that ,ersists$ that both be!in from the assum,tion that
consciousness is, and then ,roceed to ask ?hat consciousness can determine of the conscious
bein! and its otherG that 9usserlian bracketin! and Cartesian doubt both achieve a sus,ension of
the em,irical throu!h a reduction ?hich seeks to establish the field of ,ure consciousnessG that
eidetic intuition and clarity and distinctness, ,erform ,o?erfully analo!ous functions in o,enin!
consciousness to the a,,rehension of essential e;ternal forms) And, most decisively, it does not
,rohibit the acce,tance of differences far beyond those adduced by Foucault ?hilst articulatin!
them on the basis of revisionism) A revisionism, moreover, e;,ressed in all its aberrant fidelity by
the founder of ,henomenolo!y himself$ 0one mi!ht almost call transcendental ,henomenolo!y a
neo:Cartesianism, even thou!h it is obli!edAand ,recisely by its radical develo,ment of
Cartesian motifsAto reject nearly all the ?ell:kno?n doctrinal content of the Cartesian
,hiloso,hy0) &/
This inability to brook any de!ree of revisionism or influence out?ith e,istemi strikes at the heart
of The <rder of Thin!s) Since Foucault cannot contain the homolo!ies bet?een the Cartesian
co!ito and the subjects of Bant and 9usserl ?ithin a modest ,aradi!m of essential conce,tual
a,,urtenances 5and no less essential historical differences6, he is obli!ed to ,ursue drastic
strate!ies of dissociation) #henomenolo!y must be called an em,irical science in order not to be
Cartesian, the co!ito must be misread in terms of re,resentationalism in order not to be Bantian)
These difficulties stem from archaeolo!y0s determinationAat this sta!eAto ,romul!ate absolutely
ri!id, internally coherent and reci,rocally e;clusive historicalKe,istemic structures) Durin! its
,eriod of e;,erimental develo,ment, the science of archaeolo!yAlike so many other emer!ent
methodolo!iesAattem,ts to totalise its o?n ince,tive o,erations) 'n order to stake its !round,
archaeolo!y must refuse to confer, in ?hatever s,irit of su,ersessive coo,eration, ?ith traditional
a,,roaches to the history:?ritin! of ideas, thou!h, in so doin!, it is led to remould that history in a
less ,ersuasive ?ay than if it had made certain concessions to conventional notions such as
influence, revision)
The ,henomenolo!ical issue e;em,lifies these difficulties acutely) Foucault is, on the one hand,
contracted to revie? the ,henomenolo!ical enter,rise since it is the most s,lendid efflorescence
of the subject in the modern, anthro,olo!ical era and, at the same time, a theory of
consciousness that is ,oised over the immense and threatenin! abyss of the unthou!ht) The
,henomenolo!ical co!ito is thus at the ,innacle of the anthro,olo!ical e,isteme yet ,erched
before the !reatest descent, thus s,eakin! most acutely for the contradictory and hubristic
situation in ?hich modern man discovers himself) 9o?ever, the Cartesian inheritance unsettles
the very !round of the e,istemic determinism u,on ?hich these beautiful and tenebrous
formulations rest) #articularly so here since the further ?e move into modernity the !reater the
threat of Cartesianism becomes, a Cartesianism ?hich can not only be taken u, one hundred and
fifty years after its foundin! in the form of a transcendental subject of kno?led!e, but also
survives another century to be revived ?ith dmund 9usserl) And these ,roblems still further
com,ounded by the fact that Descartes also has some stake in Renaissance thou!ht)
For Foucault, the Renaissance be!an in &3++ and ended in &44+) &43+, ?e recall, ?as not the
year Descartes ?as born but the year in ?hich he died) 'f the e,istemi are not va!ue conce,tual
abstractions but, as The <rder of Thin!s every?here insists, firmly anchored historical units, then
Descartes, as a matter of historical and archaeolo!ical necessity, belon!s to the Renaissance
and his thou!htAin so far as it is ClassicalA?ill therefore a!ain be ,remonitory and ,recocious)
&( The author of the co!ito, as critic of scholastic resemblance, as Classical rationalist, as
harbin!er of the A!e of %an, ?ould then im,in!e u,on each and every one of the e,istemi) -ere
this not ominous enou!h, there are further reasons ?hy Cartesianism must be re,elled)
For oneAthou!h this may seem some?hat incidentalAthe autobio!ra,hical frame?ork ?ithin
?hich the co!ito is elaborated ?ould ,ose certain ,roblems for Foucault) The %editations
re@uires that for the time of the demonstration the readin! subject insert himself into the
Cartesian bio!ra,hy, that he follo? Descartes in his @uest of certainty, that he sit ?ithin that
uncertain body by that uncertain fire and confront the evil demon) As Descartes su!!ests, the
trials and trium,hs of the %editations are e;,eriences ?hich the reader must make his o?n) And
indeed it is this ,urely autobio!ra,hical structureA?hich is the structure also of the Discourse on
%ethodAthat delivers the co!ito from the brink of soli,sism) 'f the readin! subject installs himself
?ithin the meditatin! subject, if he becomes Cartesian, then the co!ito effectively declares 0' think,
therefore ?e e;ist0) -hile the co!ito is true for Descartes, then it is also true for anyone ?ho
?ishes to faithfully ,artici,ate in its unfoldin!) And that an inalienably autobio!ra,hical act should
become the foundin! act of the sciences of consciousness, this is an archety,e that archaeolo!y
can scarcely afford to ackno?led!e) Dac@ues Derrida asks of Freud and ,sychoanalysis$ 0ho?
can an autobio!ra,hical ?ritin!, in the abyss of an unterminated self:analysis, !ive to a ?orld?ide
institution its birth70 &8 A similar @uestion could be ,ut to Descartes and the sciences of the
subject)
%oreover, in lod!in! the ,hiloso,hical dissertation ?ithin an autobio!ra,hical narrative,
Descartes ?as not ,ro,a!atin! an eccentric or eclectic mode) To the contrary, he ?as ?ritin!
?ithin a ?ell:established discursive tradition, one ?hich not only found monumental e;,ression in
the ssays of %ontai!ne, but informed the ?hole host of mLmoires that a,,eared in the si;teenth
and seventeenth centuries) This ,henomenon, or discursive field, cannot 5archaeolo!ically or
other?ise6 be detached from the ,ost:%edieval insur!ence of interest in man, in brin!in!
scientific and ,hiloso,hical kno?led!e into harmony ?ith ,ersonal e;,erience and ,ractical
conduct) 't also coincides ?ith the seminally ethnolo!ical studies to be found in the records of
!enerals, missionaries and e;,lorers, an ethnolo!ism ?hich a,,ears in Descartes0 o?n ?ork,
,articularly in this 0Second Discourse0) This is a rich area for archaeolo!ical delvin!, one ?hich ?e
mi!ht have e;,ected Foucault to e;cavate) 9o?ever, ?ithin the economy of The <rder of Thin!s,
to do so ?ould involve o,enin! the very issue of Renaissance humanism ?hich the te;t is
determined to by,ass)*+
But the most serious threat that Descartes ,oses to The <rder of Thin!s concerns the death of
man, for ?hich his birth is ,erha,s only a ,re,aration) 'f the !round of kno?led!e can only be
chan!ed by a sudden, seismic u,heaval ?hich entirely evacuates the ,revious e,isteme and
,rovides the clearin! for its successor, then the death of manAas the event that attends the
close of the modern e,istemeAcan only occur in like fashion) Dust as man had no ,recedent in
the Classical e,isteme, so too he ?ill be irretrievably lost to futurity like a ,risoner tra,,ed in a
for!otten to?er) ven at the end of the te;t, ?hen this ,oint has been s,elled out a!ain and
a!ain, Foucault still deems it necessary to stress that the a,,earance of man
?as not the liberation of an old an;iety, the transition into luminous consciousness of an a!e:old
concern, the entry into objectivity of somethin! that had lon! remained tra,,ed ?ithin beliefs and
,hiloso,hies$ it ?as the effect of a chan!e in the fundamental arran!ements of kno?led!e) As the
archaeolo!y of our thou!ht easily sho?s, man is an invention of recent date) And one ,erha,s
nearin! its end) 'f those arran!ements ?ere to disa,,ear as they a,,eared, if some event of
?hich ?e can at the moment do no more than sense the ,ossibilityA?ithout kno?in! either ?hat
its form ?ill be or ?hat it ,romisesA?ere to cause them to crumble, as the !round of Classical
thou!ht did, at the end of the ei!hteenth century, then one can certainly ?a!er that man ?ould be
erased, like a face dra?n in sand at the ed!e of the sea) 51(/6
-e cannot kno? ho?, ?hen, or ?hy the ne;t cataclysm ?ill take ,lace, but ?e can 0certainly
?a!er0, and ?a!er, too, ?ith a @uiet certainty, ?hat its outcome ?ill be) And on the basis of ?hat7
<f man0s absolute absence before &(++, of his absolutely uni@ue arrival ?ith the modern
e,isteme) As ?ith all deaths, birth is the first, the necessary, and the sufficient condition, but ?ith
Foucault the ,recise date of ,arturition is also essential) Since, if man ?ere as old as Descartes,
if man d?elt ?here he did not 5archaeolo!ically6 belon!, ?hat is to ,revent him from
,er,etuatin!7 'f he lived before the last flood, ho? are ?e to kno? that he ?ill not survive the
ne;t7 ,istemic seclusion, e,istemic coherence isAat this sta!eAall that indicates that man ?ill
disa,,earG and this seclusion is ,urchased at the ,rice of the vi!ilant su,,ression of anythin! that
could be called Cartesianism) 't is for the same reason that there is no archaeolo!ical s,ace for
David 9ume0s still:radical ,ro,osal that the idea of the self has no e,istemolo!ical foundation and
denotes at best a mere consecution of sensations$ for bet?een Descartes and 9ume, the birth
and death of the subject of kno?led!e ?ould seem to have been rehearsed lon! before man:as:
subject is su,,osed to have come into bein! in the first ,lace) *& And as the counterhumanist
theme comes more and more to dominate The <rder of Thin!s, Foucault sho?s himself stran!ely
?illin! to sacrifice the corollary ,rinci,le that no author can transcend e,istemic determinations)
To ?hat end7 That of man) The Founder <f Futurity
Be?are ?hen the !reat =od lets loose a thinker on this ,lanet) Then all thin!s are at risk) 't is as
?hen a confla!ration has broken out in a !reat city, and no man kno?s ?hat is safe, or ?here it
?ill end) There is not a ,iece of science but its flank may be turned tomorro?G there is not any
literary re,utation, not the so:called eternal names of fame, that may not be revised and
condemned ) ) ) The thin!s ?hich are dear to men at this hour are so on account of the ideas
?hich have emer!ed on their mental horiFon, and ?hich cause the ,resent order of thin!s as a
tree bears its a,,les) A ne? de!ree of culture ?ould instantly revolutionise the entire system of
human ,ursuits)
Ral,h -aldo merson **
0' have come too early0, he then said, 0' am not yet at the ri!ht time) This ,rodi!ious event is still
on its ?ay, and is travellin! ) ) ) 0
Friedrich >ietFsche*1
'n a te;t ?hich ,ur,orts to be ?ritten neither by a subject, nor about subjects, ?ho or ?hat
motivates its narrative, stands authority for its claims7 By ?hat means mi!ht such a te;t ,ro,ose
or dis,ose at all7 9o?, indeed, is it ,ossible for that te;t to say or do anythin!7 And ?ho or ?hat,
in this ,articular case, mi!ht narrate or author the death of man7
'n an article entitled 0The Subject of Archaeolo!y or the Soverei!nty of the e,isteme0, David
Carroll contends that The <rder of Thin!s is in fact or!anised around a subject, that in eliminatin!
the subject, Foucault is led to make of the e,isteme itself a transcendental subject)*2 As Carroll
sees it, the e,isteme is a ,resence, a consciousness, the constitutive !round of all events, and
the enca,sulation of 0,ure e;,erience0) Carroll0s demonstration is saline, ,ersuasive and
,ers,icacious) 't dra?s out the futility of dethronin! one soverei!nty only to coronate another in its
stead) 9o?ever, t?o ,oints are ne!lected, and indeed must be ne!lected in this demonstration)
Firstly, ?ithin Foucault0s analysis of modernity, the idea of the death of man has no less claim to
soverei!nty) -hy else should Foucault re!ularly reiterate the necessity of this theme ?hen it has
no ,lace ?ithin the modern e,isteme7 -hy not be content to sim,ly describe the modern
arran!ement of kno?led!e ?ithout ,role,sis or ,ro,hecy7 Secondly, The <rder of Thin!s does
contain a subject in the traditional sense, a subject to ?hom, moreover, is accredited a
soverei!nty rare in any history of modern thou!ht) The central dilemma facin! Foucault in his
account of modernity is to find su,,ort for the theme of the death of man) That the death of man
is a desideratum ?e can have no doubt) Foucault makes this very clear on numerous occasions)
As one e;am,le amon! many$
To all those ?ho still ?ish to talk about man, about his rei!n or his liberation, to all those ?ho still
ask themselves @uestions about ?hat man is in his essence, to all those ?ho ?ish to take him as
their startin!:,oint in their attem,ts to reach the truth, to all those ?ho, on the other hand, refer all
kno?led!e back to the truths of man himself, to all those ?ho refuse to formalise ?ithout
anthro,olo!isin!, ?ho refuse to mytholo!ise ?ithout demystifyin!, ?ho refuse to think ?ithout
immediately thinkin! that it is man ?ho is thinkin!, to all these ?ar,ed and t?isted forms of
reflection ?e can ans?er only ?ith a ,hiloso,hical lau!hA?hich means, to a certain e;tent, a
silent one) 512*P16
9o?ever, it is not for nothin! that the archaeolo!ist ans?ers ?ith a lau!h, and a lau!h that must
be 0to a certain e;tent a silent one0, for ?hile archaeolo!y mi!ht have dra?n Foucault to the
conclusion that man must soon disa,,ear, it has also !enerated si!nificant obstacles to the
articulation of this inevitable disa,,earance)
Foucault0s archaeolo!y cannot but recall the historical dialectics of 9e!el and %ar;) 'n ,articular,
The <rder of Thin!s ?ill echo %ar;ist analyses in that it divides recent ?orld:history into
determined, self:re!ulatin! e,ochs, and antici,ates the closure of the ,resent e,och as a
,ros,ective conse@uence of the ru,tures it has discovered in the ,ast) 9o?ever, thou!h
archaeolo!y re,eats this fundamental ,rocedure, it differs from both the %ar;ist and 9e!elian
systems in one crucial res,ect) Archaeolo!y is anti:dialectical, ?hich is to say that it is also
ateleolo!ical) Althou!h the %ar;ist and 9e!elian dialectics assert that historical chan!e occurs
o,,ositionally, nevertheless, every era contains, in statu nascendi, the elements ?hich ?ill
,artici,ate synthetically in its su,ersession) Thus did %ar; ar!ue that bour!eois society, in its
fissures, contradictions and internal ?eaknesses, en!enders the forces ?hose full realisation ?ill
result in the institution of a !lobally communistic society) 't is therefore only throu!h an analysis of
the structures and instabilities of bour!eois society that the dialectical materialist can divine the
forms, @ualities and historical necessity of the comin! e,och)
The same economy is at ?ork for the dialectical idealist) -ithin 9e!el0s The #hiloso,hy of -orld
9istory, the three !reat a!es ,recedin! the modern, and final a!e, contain ?ithin themselves the
,atterns and dynamics of their simultaneous closure and sublation) *3 For Foucault, thou!h,
e,istemic chan!e is blind, acausal and discontinuous, 0a ,rofound breach in the e;,anse of
continuities0) 5*&/6 >othin! in the modern e,isteme can be said to ,refi!ure, or even insinuate the
or!anisation of the succeedin! e,isteme) Archaeolo!y is contracted to inhabit a s,ace outside all
teleolo!ies, and conse@uently must reject even the antithetical develo,ment of dialectic)
Conse@uently, Foucault cannot fully utilise his anthro,olo!ical doubles, since any ar!ument ?hich
sees the co!ito becomin! s?am,ed in the unthou!ht im,lies that the very force ?hich is to be
constitutive of the counterhuman future ?as already ,rofoundly active ?ithin the A!e of %an) The
necessity of avoidin! dialectical models becomes all the more ur!ent here, since, as Foucault
stresses, alon! ?ith anthro,olo!y, dialectic is the characteristic fi!ure of the modern e,isteme)
9avin! been constituted at the turn of the ei!hteenth century ?hen dialectical and anthro,olo!ical
models su,,lanted the Classical arran!ement, the fi!ure of man can only disa,,ear ?hen
dialectic has run its course)*4 Thus, ?hilst the double ,ostulates, and inherent contradictions of
anthro,olo!y may be re!istered, and dra?n out at a certain len!th, they cannot be ,ressed in the
counterhumanist direction in ?hich they seem to be headed, for it ?ould make little sense to drive
man out of e;istence by ?ay and by virtue of those forms of thou!ht ?hich brou!ht him into
bein!) To do so ?ould only be to testify to the ubi@uity and ,erdurance of the very system of
kno?led!e ?hich Foucault seeks to think beyond)
%oreover, and accordin! to the same e;i!encies, there is no su,,ort to be found in the fact that
for every assertion of a transcendental subjectivity over the last one hundred and fifty years, there
is an e@ual if not !reater ?ei!ht of counterassertion)*/ Ruite to the contrary, the e;istence of
anythin! resemblin! a counterhumanist tradition so far from consolidatin! Foucault0s thesis,
unsettles its very foundations) A readin! ?hich sees a develo,in! counterhumanism in %ar;,
>ietFsche, Freud, 9eide!!er, .acan, .Lvi:Strauss ?ould not only rea?aken an inimical
dialecticism, but jeo,ardise the idea that it is not im,ossible to think in terms other than those of a
transcendental anthro,olo!y in the modern e,isteme)
By this sta!e the archaeolo!ical a;ioms have be!un to cro?d in u,on each other, and ?e mi!ht
note the essential ,erversity of a antihumanist methodolo!y ?hich le!islates a!ainst the factors
most aus,icious to its articulation) Foucault cannot base the death of man u,on the contents of
the modern e,isteme, for, as ?e have said, the death of man is most assuredly not an e,istmime,
nor can he admit the e;istence of a ,o?erful countermovement a!ainst the transcendental
subject ?ithin the e,och of subjectivity) The only authority that Foucault can fall back on is the
sus,ect and inade@uate ,ro,osition ?hich underlies the !randeFFa of the book0s close$ man ?as
born circa &(++ as the child of a ,articular confi!uration of kno?led!e, and ?hen that
confi!uration disa,,ears 5as it surely ?ill do, soon6, then man ?ill be no more) This ,ro,ositionA
?hich holds only if ?e see nothin! of man in Renaissance humanism, in the co!ito, in anti@uity
even, if ?e consent to the absolute alterity of e,istemi to each otherAis scarcely sufficient, of
itself, to ,ersuade the most a?e:struck archaeolo!ical votary of the imminent and inevitable
demise of man)
't is at this ,oint, and into this im,le;, that >ietFsche enters The <rder of Thin!s) 9avin! devoted
so much ener!y to resistin! the insistent ,ressure that Cartesianism e;erts on the borders of his
te;t, havin! bound archaeolo!y to study the discourses of ,articular authors as circumscribed
and delimited by the arran!ement of kno?led!e in ?hich they emer!e, Foucault nevertheless
declares$
>ietFsche ) ) ) took the end of time and transformed it into the death of =od and the odyssey of
the last manG he took u, anthro,olo!ical finitude once a!ain, but in order to use it as the basis for
the ,rodi!ious lea, of the su,erman IWbermenschJG he took u, once a!ain the !reat continuous
chain of 9istory, but in order to bend it round into the infinity of the eternal return) 't is in vain that
the death of =od, the imminence of the su,erman, and the ,romise and terror of the !reat year
take u, once more, as it ?ere term by term, the elements that are arran!ed in nineteenth:century
thou!ht and form its archaeolo!ical frame?ork) The fact remains that they sent all these stable
forms u, in flames, that they used their charred remains to dra? stran!e and ,erha,s im,ossible
facesG and by a li!ht that may be eitherA?e do not yet kno? ?hichAthe revivin! flame of the last
!reat fire or an indication of the da?n, ?e see the emer!ence of ?hat may ,erha,s be the s,ace
of contem,orary thou!ht) 't ?as >ietFsche, in any case, ?ho burned for us, even before ?e ?ere
born, the intermin!led ,romises of the dialectic and anthro,olo!y) 5*416
This de,iction is @uite obviously in the shar,est contradistinction to the central archaeolo!ical
,rescri,tion that all discourses are e,istemically determined) So far is >ietFsche from bein!
enmeshed in the net?ork of nineteenth:century thou!ht, that his te;ts do not merely @uestion,
contest or undermine that order, but antici,ate a ne? and ulterior confi!uration of kno?led!e
?hich had not yet confidently be!un in the middle of the t?entieth century, and ?hich is, it ?ould
seem, still to come) >ietFsche does not reject or by,ass dialectic and anthro,olo!y, he sends
them u, in flamesG the death of =od, the Wbermensch and the eternal return do not merely thro?
do?n a challen!e to 9e!elian and Bantian conce,tions of man and time, they re,resent the most
si!nificant si!n,osts for the future of thou!ht itself)
This ,assa!eA?ith scarcely ,erce,tible modificationsAis to recur four times in Foucault0s te;t,
and al?ays at critical junctures) arly on in the a;ial cha,ter 0%an and his Doubles0, Foucault
asks of the contem,orary ,reoccu,ation ?ith lan!ua!e$ 0's it a si!n ) ) ) that thou!ht ) ) ) is
about to re:a,,rehend itself in its entirety, and to illumine itself once more in the li!htnin! flash of
bein!7 's that not ?hat >ietFsche ?as ,avin! the ?ay for ?hen, in the interior s,ace of his
lan!ua!e, he killed man and =od both at the same time, and thereby ,romised ?ith the Return
the multi,le and re:illumined li!ht of the !ods70 51+46 %id?ay throu!h 0%an and his Doubles0, as
Foucault closes the decisive section 0The m,irical and the Transcendental0, he does not allo?
his analysis to move directly to the natural conclusion, that this dual and contradictory conce,tion
of man si!nals an inherent instability in the anthro,olo!ical conce,tion of the subject) Rather, ?e
find his te;t sayin!$
't is easy to see ?hy >ietFsche0s thou!ht should have had, and still has for us, such a disturbin!
,o?er ?hen it introduced in the form of an imminent event, the #romise:Threat, the notion that
man ?ould soon be no moreAbut ?ould be re,laced by the su,erman IWbermenschJG in a
,hiloso,hy of the Return, this meant that man had lon! since disa,,eared and ?ould continue to
disa,,ear, and that our modern thou!ht about man, our concern for him, our humanism, ?ere all
slee,in! serenely over the threatenin! rumble of his non:e;istence) 51**6
And in the midst of still another homa!e of this kind, Foucault states that$ 0>ietFsche, offerin! this
future to us as both ,romise and task, marks the threshold beyond ?hich contem,orary
,hiloso,hy can be!in thinkin! a!ainG and he ?ill no doubt continue for a lon! ?hile to dominate its
advance)0 512*6 'n each of these ,assa!es, the ,acka!e is the same) Firstly, in killin! =od,
>ietFsche also killed man) Secondly, that the Wbermensch si!nals not the Fenith of man but his
death) Thirdly, that the eternal return dissolves man) Fourthly, that ?e are at the threshold of a
>ietFschean e,isteme, that the mission of contem,orary thou!ht is to become >ietFschean) And
this recourse to >ietFsche occurs at every ,oint ?here Foucault directly declares the
disa,,earance of man) ven the famous ?ords that end The <rder of Thin!s cannot !et alon!
?ithout the invocation of the ,recursor) Settlin! his accounts, the archaeolo!ist0s recourse to
>ietFsche takes its most confident form yet$
Rather than the death of =odAor, rather, in the ?ake of that death and in a ,rofound correlation
?ith itA?hat >ietFsche0s thou!ht heralds is the end of his murdererG it is the e;,losion of man0s
face in lau!hter, and the return of masksG it is the scatterin! of the ,rofound stream of time by
?hich he felt himself carried alon! and ?hose ,ressure he sus,ected in the very bein! of thin!sG
it is the identity of the Return of the Same ?ith the absolute dis,ersion of man) Throu!hout the
nineteenth century, the end of ,hiloso,hy and the ,romise of an a,,roachin! culture ?ere no
doubt one and the same thin! as the thou!ht of finitude and the a,,earance of man in the field of
kno?led!eG in our day, the fact that ,hiloso,hy is stillAand a!ainAin the ,rocess of comin! to an
end, and the fact that in it ,erha,s, thou!h even more outside and a!ainst it, in literature as ?ell
as in formal reflection, the @uestion of lan!ua!e is bein! ,osed, ,rove no doubt that man is in the
,rocess of disa,,earin!) 51(36
-hat 0absolute dis,ersion of man0 could mean here is difficult to ima!ine, and is made no clearer
by its identification ?ith the eternal return) %oreover, ho? this summary and lyrical train of
inter,retation could ever 0,rove no doubt that man is in the ,rocess of disa,,earin!0 is
inconceivable) But ?hat is even more troublesome is that Foucault could @uite easily have
brou!ht >ietFsche into line ?ith his ,rinci,le of e,istemic determinism)
Foucault is not com,elled to read >ietFsche0s te;ts as announcin! the death of man, if anythin!
the !reater ?ei!ht of inter,retation and te;tual evidence tends in the o,,osite direction) -hat
Foucault ,resents is a brief but in!enious inversion of customary >ietFschean e;e!esis, ?hich
has traditionally seen not the death of man as attendant u,on the death of =od, but the liberation
of man from enslavement to an antithetical, other?orldly ideal) Similarly, the Wbermensch has
been seen as the most strenuous a?akenin! of the ,otential and ,ro,ensities that have lain
dormant ?ithin man durin! the Christian era) 's the fibermensch the first a,,earance of man in his
untrammelled essentiality7 9is fulfilment understood as trium,h or cessation7 9is a,otheosis7
Antithesis7 Closure7 All of these7 >one of these7 -e have no final ans?er to these @uestions for
the !ood reason that >ietFsche im,lies that the Wbermensch both is and is not man) At one
moment Narathustra ?ill say, 0' teach you the Su,erman IXbermenschJ) %an is somethin! that
should be overcome0, *( at another that the Wbermensch is the realisation of all that is best in
man) And later, in The =enealo!y of %orals, that the Wbermensch is 0a man ?ho ?ill justify the
e;istence of mankind, for ?hose sake one may continue to believe in mankindT0)*8
Eet Foucault decides unilaterally and absolutely in favour of the anti:subjectivist readin! ?hich
,uts >ietFsche ?ell beyond the ,ale of e,istemic consistency) The eternal return, he claims 5?ith
a ,hiloso,hic naYvety scarcely credible6, means that 0man had lon! since disa,,eared and ?ould
continue to disa,,ear0, 51**6 ?henAas the recurrence of everythin! that has been, is, and ?ill be
Athe eternal return e@ually means that man ?ill rea,,ear and continue to rea,,ear, even !iven
that he ?ill disa,,ear) 0Alas, man recurs eternally0, Narathustra laments)1+ .ike?ise, little obli!es
Foucault to hea, such literality u,on the idea of the last man) This notion occurs but once in
>ietFsche, in 0Narathustra0s #rolo!ue0 and su!!ests entirely the o,,osite of Foucault0s
inter,retation) 0The last man lives lon!est0, Narathustra announces, im,lyin! that the liberal:
Dar?inist man here indicated outlives both the death of =od and the Wbermensch)1&
This is not so much to !ainsay Foucault0s readin! here, still less to recommend that >ietFschean
e;e!esis be returned to an aristocratic radicalism, or to e;istentialist inter,retation) Foucault0s
counterhumanist a,,ro,riation, thou!h ,artial and hy,erbolic, has ,layed its ,art in o,enin! u,
the ,roblematic of man and the subject in >ietFsche, a ,roblematic ?ithin ?hose s,ecific
contours so much of the contem,orary humanist:antihumanist debate has been conducted)1*
-hat is tellin!, thou!h, in terms of The <rder of Thin!s, is that Foucault could ?ell have read
>ietFsche as confirmin! rather than subvertin! the archaeolo!ical theory of kno?led!e)
For one, the fact that the idea of the death of =od did not ori!inate ?ith >ietFsche, but is indeed
,art of a !eneral movement in nineteenth:century thou!ht ?ould seem to be very im,ortant from
the ,ers,ective of an analysis contracted to study discourse in terms of clusters and net?orks
rather than on the level of individual achievement) Eet >ietFsche is ,resented as the sole author
of this idea, des,ite its emer!ence in situations so various as the discourses of Sade, 9eine,
Stirner and the Russian nihilists) Furthermore, if the !eneral notion of the death of =od
intersectin! ?ith a certain death of man is to be asserted of >ietFsche, does this connection not
emer!e ?ith every bit as much clarity in %ar;7 11 Secondly, >ietFsche0s ideas on the
Wbermensch, on the hi!her and lo?er men, on the s,ecies ideal, on the reli!ion of man and the
earth, ?ould a,,ear to belon! just as surely to the nineteenth:century ,reoccu,ation ?ith the
destiny and fulfilment of man, even if it ?as >ietFsche0s intention to ,roclaim the death of man)
-hy then, ?e mi!ht ask, ?hen numerous ,ath?ays ?ere o,en to Foucault by ?hich >ietFsche
mi!ht be consistently and ,roductively lod!ed ?ithin the archaeolo!ical descri,tion of the modern
e,isteme, does he follo? a readin! entirely ruinous to the re@uisite transindividuality of his
analyses7
As ?e have said, by this sta!e in his te;t, Foucault has ?ritten a?ay almost all authority for the
contention that the fi!ure of man is disa,,earin!) Such a thesis ?ould ,resent enormous
difficulties to a methodolo!y ?hich had the full array of dialectical antici,ation and teleolo!y at its
dis,osal, but in a te;t ?hich has le!islated a!ainst seein! the structures, instabilities and !eneral
tendencies of the ,ast as indicative of the future confi!uration of kno?led!e, the redoubtable
,roblematics of ,rediction become still !reater a!ain)
The most convincin! demonstration of the necessity of the disa,,earance of man ?ill al?ays be
that ?hich e;,oses the contradictions and instabilities of the humanist discourse ?ithin ?hich his
fi!ure is constituted) And Foucault0s account of the anthro,olo!ical doubles moves a !ood ?ay in
that direction) Eet it is here, ,recisely at the ,oint ?here archaeolo!y0s counterhumanism is at its
stron!est, that Foucault is com,elled to forestall his analysis, to fud!e the issue as to ?hether the
se,aration of man into distinct and incom,atible characterisations does indeed ,refi!ure the
arrival of a de:anthro,olo!ised e,isteme) 9avin! forced himself into this corner, the fi!ure of
>ietFsche ,roves of ,articular strate!ic si!nificance to Foucault at this ,oint) 'n !roundin! the
entire counterhumanist thrust of the last hundred years or so in the solitary ,ersona of >ietFsche,
Foucault avoids the ,ro!ressional series runnin! from %ar; throu!h >ietFsche, Freud,
9eide!!er, .acan, .Lvi:Strauss, 5Foucault6Aa series ?hich ?ould strike at both the e,istemic
and anti:teleolo!ical bases of archaeolo!y) 'n order to consolidate his thesis, Foucault resorts to
a transe,istemic author throu!h ?hom he ,rovides ?arrants for the death of man ?ithout
sacrificin! the coherence and autonomy of the e,istemiG the notion of a transe,istemic author
,ossessin!, as it ?ill, the ,eculiar and tactical ,ro,erty of ,reservin! the e,isteme ?hilst licensin!
de,artures from its determinations) The valorisation of >ietFsche0s discourse therefore belon!s to
the same economy that has su,,ressed the Cartesian co!ito) >ietFsche0s ,remonitions ,reside
over the death of man in the same ?ay as the deracination of the Cartesian influence ensures his
uni@ue birth ?ith Bant) And the @uestion of the death of man is, as ?e kno?, inse,arable from the
@uestion of his birth$ 0man is an invention of recent date) And one ,erha,s nearin! its end0) 51(/6
The absence of Descartes facilitates the first ,ro,osition, the ,resence of >ietFsche motivates the
second) 'ndeed, as re!ards these t?o fi!ures, the transindividual ,ostulate of The <rder of
Thin!s colla,ses on both fronts) Descartes and >ietFsche attestAby counter,ointAto the
irresistibility of the author) The Cartesianism ?hich Foucault denies can only be muffled not
silencedG the >ietFscheanism he es,ouses ?ill not make itself heard ?ithout the voice of the
master)
This is neither the first, nor ?ill it be the last time that Foucault ?ill have recourse to >ietFsche in
this ,recursive and foundational manner) Throu!hout Foucault0s ?ritin! life the name of >ietFsche
?ill al?ays be one of the most im,ortant si!n,osts for future ?ork, the most si!nificant ,oint of
return for modern thou!ht) 'n %adness and CiviliFation, >ietFsche is ,resented as the !reat
harbin!er of the life of unreason, a modern hero ?ho resists the 0!i!antic moral im,risonment0 of
-estern rationality) 12 ven The Birth of the Clinic turns to >ietFsche at a crucial ,oint in its
denouement)13 'n a 0#reface to Trans!ression0, trans!ression itselfAthe thou!ht of a futurity of
?hich ?e can only !lim,se the 0calcinated roots, ) ) ) ,romisin! ashes0Ais 0that form of thou!ht to
?hich >ietFsche dedicated us from the be!innin! of his ?orks and one ?hich ?ould be,
absolutely and in the same motion, a Criti@ue and an <ntolo!y, an understandin! that
com,rehends both finitude and bein!)014 'ndeed, this essay ,resents, in crystalline form, the
dominant thesis of The <rder of Thin!s$
Bant ) ) ) ultimately rele!ated all critical investi!ations to an anthro,olo!ical @uestionG and
undoubtedly, ?e have subse@uently inter,reted Bant0s action as the !rantin! of an indefinite
res,ite to meta,hysics, because dialectics substituted for the @uestionin! of bein! and limits the
,lay of contradiction and totality) To a?aken us from the confused slee, of dialectics and of
anthro,olo!y, ?e re@uired the >ietFschean fi!ures of tra!edy, of Dionysus, of the death of =od,
of the ,hiloso,her0s hammer, of the Su,erman IXbermenschJ a,,roachin! ?ith the ste,s of a
dove, of the Return)1/
9ere a!ain Foucault0s attitude to >ietFsche is com,letely uncritical) 't is assumed that >ietFsche
achieved his intention to break ?ith the Bantian system, and that in so doin! he o,ened u, the
s,ace of a non:meta,hysical criti@ue) As every?here else, Foucault does not trouble to ask
e;actly ?hat form such a criti@ue mi!ht take, ho? >ietFsche actually 0?ithin the interior of his
lan!ua!e killed =od and man both0, nor does he ?onder ?hether or not >ietFsche mi!ht have
remained enmeshed ?ithin the cate!ories he sou!ht to esca,e, ho? there can be a Dionysianism
?ithout any of its dialectical counter,arts 5A,ollonianism, Socratism, Christianity6, and so on) But
then Foucault does not re!ard such @uestions as ,articularly com,ellin!, since, ?hen >ietFsche
is not bein! held u, as a systematic ,hiloso,hical critic of ori!ins, dialectic, and anthro,olo!y, he
is bein! recoursed to as mystical ,oet of futurity) At one time, >ietFsche is a mad trans!ressor of
limitsG at another, a ,atient, ri!orous !enealo!ist ?ho soberly ,ro,ounds the ,hiloso,hical
necessity of the end of subject:centred ,hiloso,hies) -hich of these t?o functions >ietFsche is
servin! in Foucault0s ?ork is usually si!nalled by the authors beside ?hom he is summoned)
-hen it is a @uestion of the trans!ressive >ietFsche, the names of Sade, 9Zlderlin, Artaud and
Bataille ?ill be @uick in comin!, ?hen it is that of >ietFsche as the formulator of a radical and
counterhumanist hermeneutic system, he ?ill be invoked in the com,any of %ar; and Freud)
>ot that Foucault deems these t?o functions incom,atible) DeleuFe, another elect author in
Foucault0s ?ork, is seen in both trans!ressive, anti:rationalist terms, and as a ,hiloso,hical critic
of such im,ortance that 0,erha,s, one day, this century ?ill be kno?n as DeleuFian0, that throu!h
his labours 0ne? thou!ht is ,ossible) Thou!ht itself is a!ain ,ossible)0 1( 'n The <rder of Thin!s,
>ietFsche ,lays both these roles simultaneously) <n the one hand, the death of =od and man,
the thou!ht of the eternal return and the Wbermensch are blindin! ,oetic flashes, fi!ures of an
essentially lyrical and Del,hic vision, on the other elements of a criti@ue ?hich raFes both
dialectic and anthro,olo!y) >aturally, the result of this dual ,rivile!e is a valorisation of the
>ietFschean discourse far in e;cess of anythin! to be found in traditional >ietFschean e;e!esis)
ssentially, Foucault seems to be sayin! of >ietFsche ?hat >ietFsche0s final me!alomania ?as
sayin! of >ietFsche$ to ?it, that he is a destiny, ?ill be born ,osthumously, and so on) 'ndeed, ?e
mi!ht say that Foucault is never so >ietFschean as ?hen he invokes >ietFsche, not on account of
the thou!ht thereby re,resented, but by the manner of his invokin!, for >ietFsche throu!hout
celebrated the vie? of history ?hich sees !reat menASocrates, .uther, =oethe, >a,oleon, and
othersAsucceedin! each other across e,ochs) very a!e, he ?ill insist, is meanin!ful only in
terms of its hi!her ty,es) And it is these hi!her ty,es ?ho carry ?ith then the ,romise of the
Wbermensch) First and foremost, the Wbermensch is the untimely one, he ?ho cannot be
contained by his times, still less by an or!anisin! centre of ,rediscursive re!ularities) -ithin
Foucault0s te;tual history, this ,rivile!ed, transhistorical status is besto?ed u,on >ietFsche
himself)
Foucault no?here considers ?hy >ietFsche should be archaeolo!ically unconstrainable, ?hy
there should be a thinker ?hose insi!hts structuralism, hermeneutics and archaeolo!y do not
sim,ly take u,, revise and de,loy, but to ?hose ,romise they hasten) Such a descri,tion ?ould
be troublesome enou!h to the most bountiful auteurism, let alone to a transindividual history of
discourse) -ith a theorist often so meticulous before methodolo!y and its aberrations some
e;,lanation mi!ht be e;,ected, but none ?hatever is ,roffered) But then this is a ,roblem ?hich
invades Foucault0s thou!ht at every sta!e) 'n one breath, he ,resents discourse as entirely
subject to the rule, as thorou!hly determined, constituted and circumscribed by the e,istemic
conditions of its emer!enceG in another, he ?ishes to s,onsor, endorse and liberate a
revolutionary or trans!ressive literature, a thou!ht ?hich defies any re,ressive system, ?hich
?ould break free of any cate!ories, even those ?hich archaeolo!y has im,osed u,on discourse)
This tension is itself a,,arent in the tem,ers of his o?n ?ritin!, and the ?ays in ?hich he
structures his te;ts and their cha,ters) %ore often than not his method is to ?ork from a cool,
careful analysis to?ard hiero,hantic ,ro!nostications on the destiny of human kno?led!e) ven
in a te;t like The Archaeolo!y of Bno?led!e, ?hich ?ould seem entirely !iven over to the rule,
Foucault ?ill still conclude by seein! his elaboration of the enunciative function and rules of
formation for statements as a challen!e to the 0!reat historico:transcendental destiny of the -est0)
18 This is ,erha,s ?hat =illes DeleuFe meant in a ?onderful o;ymoron ?hen he called Foucault
a 0romantic ,ositivist0)2+ As ?ith the ?ork of %ar;, the most ,atient documentary analysis is
driven to ,ro,hetic, even of occasion, heteroto,ian conclusions)2& But ?hereas these forces
achieve a certain fruitful tension in %ar;, ?ith Foucault the romantic and the ,ositivist remain
essentially im,enetrable and stran!e to one another, so that as often as not it seems that either
Foucault0s visionary lyricism disru,ts his coolly formalist analyses or, in another conte;t, that he is
the ,risoner of his o?n archaeolo!ical cate!ories)
>o?here is this inconsistency more keenly re!istered than in The <rder of Thin!s, ?here, on the
one hand, ?e mi!ht ?ish that Foucault had dedicated more ener!y to describin! the conditions of
kno?led!e ?ithin the modern e,isteme than to ,re,arin! the sta!e for its disa,,earance, and on
the other that he had rela;ed his e,istemic structures to allo? for obvious noetic a,,urtenances,
an aetiolo!y of conce,ts from one era to another, ,hylo!enetic analyses, and so on) Certainly, in
any case, little ?ould have been lost by acce,tin! a !eneral ,rinci,le of reci,rocal inter,lay
bet?een ?hat determines authors and ?hat authors determine, even if this relationshi, ?ere to
be ?ei!hted heavily in favour of dee,:lyin! rules of discursive emer!ence)
<f course, there are many reasons ?hy Foucault should have encountered insurmountable
difficulties in this te;t) The <rder of Thin!s is, after all, amon! the most ambitious histories
attem,ted since 9e!el, and is all the more ambitious in that it attem,ts to tell the story of four
centuries ?ithout recourse to the idea of history itself, to the e;tent that history im,lies teleolo!y,
aetiolo!y and influence, notions ?hich not only ,rovide the !round ,rinci,les of historicity in
!eneral, but ?hich also !reatly facilitate the im,osition of some form of narrative u,on the
,roliferation of discourses) And ?e cannot but feel that had Foucault se,arated his e,istemic
researches from his attack u,on the subject, ,erha,s even in the form of t?o discrete te;ts, that
both theses ?ould have !ained in consistency from this distance) Foucault0s subse@uent ?ork
!oes a certain ?ay to?ard un,acka!in! these themes, thou!h on the @uestion of authorshi, his
revisionAlike The <rder of Thin!s itselfAboth contradicts and reconfirms archaeolo!ical
anonymity)
-hat 5And -ho6 's An Author7
As mi!ht be e;,ected, The <rder of Thin!s became the subject of fierce controversy) Eet
Foucault, !enerally so ,assionate in defence of his labours, tended to a!ree ?ith many of his
detractor0s jud!ements) 'n the 0Fore?ord to the n!lish dition0 of The <rder of Thin!s he isolated
three ,roblems to ?hich his te;t had no satisfactory ans?ers$ the ,roblems of chan!e, causality
and the authorial subject) <f these ,roblems, it ?as the latter ?hich seemed to have troubled
Foucault most, and he returned to the author:@uestion at len!th in a ,a,er entitled 0-hat is an
Author70) 2* 'n the ,reamble to this mono!ra,h, Foucault e;,lained the necessity for a
reevaluation of his a,,roach in The <rder of Thin!s$
'n ,ro,osin! this sli!htly odd @uestion, ' am conscious of the need for an e;,lanation) To this day,
the 0author0 remains an o,en @uestion both ?ith res,ect to its !eneral function ?ithin discourse
and in my o?n ?ritin!sG that is, this @uestion ,ermits me to return to certain as,ects of my ?ork
?hich no? a,,ear ill:advised and misleadin!) 'n this re!ard, ' ?ish to ,ro,ose a necessary
criticism and re:evaluation)
For instance, my objective in The <rder of Thin!s had been to analyse verbal clusters as
discursive layers ?hich fall outside the familiar cate!ories of a book, a ?ork, or an author) But
?hile ' considered 0natural history0, the 0analysis of ?ealth0, and 0,olitical economy0 in !eneral
terms, ' ne!lected a similar analysis of the author and his ?orksG it is ,erha,s due to this omission
that ' em,loyed the names of authors throu!hout this book in a naive and often crude fashion) '
s,oke of Buffon, Cuvier, Ricardo, and others as ?ell, but failed to realise that ' had allo?ed their
names to function ambi!uously) 21
Eet, from the list of e;am,les Foucault for?ards, it is clear that 0-hat is an Author70 is not
destined to be an entirely o,en and candid critical reevaluation of The <rder of Thin!s) 'f, in fact,
the names Buffon, Cuvier and Ricardo do function ambi!uously in this te;t they scarcely do so
?ith a breath of the mystery ?hich surrounds that of >ietFsche) 'ndeed, 0-hat is an Author70
re,eats many of the ambi!uities that it seeks to dis,el) As in The <rder of Thin!s, a s,irit of
hostility to the author is to encase a meta:authorial descri,tion) The essay ,ro,er o,ens ?ith a
line from Beckett, 0-hat does it matter ?ho is s,eakin!70, a line ?hich tolls at the close as the
indifferent ans?er to its o?n @uestion, as Foucault ho,efully envisions a society in ?hich the
author:function ?ill have disa,,eared)22 'ndeed ?ere ?e only to read the be!innin! and end of
the main te;t, ?e should be for!iven for assumin! 0-hat is an Author70 to be a no less
intransi!ently anti:authorial tract than Barthes0s 0The Death of the Author0) Eet havin! made a
number of ,reliminary and schematic observations on the author function, Foucault introduces
the centre:,iece of his discussion$
' seem to have !iven the term 0author0 much too narro? a meanin!) ' have discussed the author
only in the limited sense of a ,erson to ?hom the ,roduction of a te;t, a book, or a ?ork can be
le!itimately attributed) 't is easy to see that in the s,here of discourse one can be the author of
much more than a bookAone can be the author of a theory, tradition, or disci,line in ?hich other
books and authors ?ill in their turn find a ,lace) These authors are in a ,osition ?hich ?e shall
call 0transdiscursive0) This is a recurrin! ,henomenonAcertainly as old as our civilisation)
9omer, Aristotle, and the Church Fathers, as ?ell as the first mathematicians and the ori!inators
of the 9i,,ocratic tradition, all ,layed this role) 5&316
Foucault is here su!!estin! that the ,rinci,le of authorshi, e;ceeds the bounds of the body of
te;ts ?hich bear his name) Thus the idea of an author e;ercisin! a jurisdiction over his o?n te;ts
has not only been acce,ted in ,rinci,le but is seen to be too narro? and restrictive in ,articular
cases$ Aristotle is, in a sense, the author of Aristotelianism, uclid the author of !eometry) 't is
easy to see that many authors could lay claim to a transdiscursive status) -hat is true of Aristotle
in this conte;t ?ill be no less true of #lato, ?hilst A@uinas, #tolemy and Descartes ?ould all seem
to have !iven rise to ideational s,aces 0in ?hich other books and authors ?ill in their turn find a
,lace0) 'ndeed, ?herever an 0ism0 attaches itself to a ,ro,er name, there some de!ree of
transdiscursivity has arisen) <f course, in modern times, %ar; and Freud are the most obvious
e;am,les of this ,henomenon, but for Foucault they e;ert a still !reater ,rotectorshi, over the
discourses they commence$
Furthermore, in the course of the nineteenth century, there a,,eared in uro,e another, more
uncommon, kind of author, ?hom one should confuse ?ith neither the 0!reat0 literary authors, nor
the authors of reli!ious te;ts, nor the founders of science) 'n a some?hat arbitrary ?ay ?e shall
call those ?ho belon! in this last !rou, 0founders of discursivity0) They are uni@ue in that they are
not just the authors of their o?n ?orks) They have ,roduced somethin! else$ the ,ossibilities and
the rules for the formation of other te;ts) 'n this sense, they are very different, for e;am,le, from a
novelist, ?ho is, in fact, nothin! more than the author of his o?n te;t) Freud is not just the author
of The 'nter,retation of Dreams or Dokes and their Relation to the "nconsciousG %ar; is not just
the author of the Communist %anifesto or Ca,ital$ they both have established an endless
,ossibility of discourse) 5&326 23
.ike 0founders of lan!ua!es0 in Barthes, the ,hrase 0founders of discursivity0 ?ill sound stran!ely
here, for it is the conce,t of the subject as founder ?hich has earned Foucault0s most consistent
and endurin! disa,,robation) And Foucault is not merely ackno?led!in! that Freud and %ar;
sim,ly founded ,sychoanalysis and %ar;ism in the sense that they ,rovided the conce,ts and
,rocedures ?ith ?hich these discursivities could !et under?ay, but that, as disci,lines, dialectical
materialism and ,sychoanalysis cannot !o beyond the ince,tive te;ts) 9o?ever ,o?erful or
radical the ?ork of subse@uent %ar;ists or ,sychoanalysts, their revisions ?ill al?ays be
le!islated for ?ithin the ,rimal cor,us) For this reason, the foundin! of a discursivity is to be
distin!uished from the initiation of a science) -hereas the history of a science tends to be that of
one ,aradi!m re,lacin! another in a linear or ,ro!ressive series ?hich moves ever further from
the inau!ural theorems or discoveries, that of the %ar;ist and Freudian discursivities takes the
form of a ,er,etual return to the founder) Thus ?hilst the foundin! act of a science becomes
inscribed as a necessary but no? obsolescent sta!e ?ithin the develo,ment of the scientific field,
0the initiation of a discursive ,ractice does not ,artici,ate in its later transformations0) 5&346 As
Foucault ,uts it, in a remarkable schema$ 0the ?ork of initiators of discursivity is not situated in the
s,ace that science definesG rather, it is the science or the discursivity ?hich refers back to their
?ork as ,rimary coordinates0) 5&346
-e have therefore arrived at a ,osition diametrically o,,osed to the archaeolo!ical thesis) So far
from the ?ork of authors bein! determined in their nature and very e;istence by the discursive
formation, the entire discursive formation is hereby de,endent on the ?ork of an individual author)
Foucault continues$
'n this ?ay ?e can understand the inevitable necessity, ?ithin these fields of discursivity, for a
0return to the ori!in0) This return, ?hich is ,art of the discursive field itself, never sto,s modifyin!
it) The return is not a historical su,,lement ?hich ?ould be added to the discursivity, or merely an
ornamentG on the contrary, it constitutes an effective and necessary task of transformin! the
discursive ,ractice itself) Re:e;amination of =alileo0s te;t may ?ell chan!e our kno?led!e of the
history of mechanics, but it ?ill never be able to chan!e mechanics itself) <n the other hand, re:
e;aminin! Freud0s te;ts modifies ,sychoanalysis itself just as a re:e;amination of %ar;0s ?ould
modify %ar;ism) 5&3/6
The ,hrase 0return to the ori!in0 has its sur,rises also, and the @uotation marks ?ith ?hich it is
surrounded are unaccom,anied by any ,recautions) As a direct conse@uence of these returns$
To define these returns more clearly, one must also em,hasise that they tend to reinforce the
eni!matic link bet?een an author and his ?orks) A te;t has an inau!urative value ,recisely
because it is the ?ork of a ,articular author, and our returns are conditioned by this kno?led!e)
As in the case of =alileo, there is no ,ossibility that the rediscovery of an unkno?n te;t by
>e?ton or Cantor ?ill
modify classical cosmolo!y or set theory as ?e kno? them 5at best, such an e;humation mi!ht
modify our historical kno?led!e of their !enesis6) <n the other hand, the discovery of a te;t like
Freud0s 0#roject for a Scientific #sycholo!y0Ainsofar as it is a te;t by FreudAal?ays threatens to
modify not the historical kno?led!e of ,sychoanalysis, but its theoretical field, even if only by
shiftin! the accentuation or the center of !ravity) 5&3/6 24
Des,ite be!innin! 0-hat is an Author70 ?ith the @uestion 0-hat does it matter ?ho is s,eakin!70
and concludin! ?ith the ans?er that it shouldn0t really matter at all, Foucault here ,rovides the
most e;treme e;am,le of ?hy it does matter) The discovery of a te;t like Freud0s 0#roject for a
Scientific #sycholo!y0 ?ill modify ,sychoanalysis if and only if it is a te;t by Freud) <ver and
above the te;t0s contents, the fact of attributionAin and of itselfAis the ,rimary factor in
establishin! its si!nificance for the ,sychoanalytic field) 'ndeed so ,o?erful is the disjunction
bet?een the declarations that surround 0-hat is an Author70, and the descri,tions it makes, that it
almost seems a Bierke!aardian e;ercise in collatin! antithetical te;ts) <n the one hand, Foucault
is seekin! out the s,ecific conditions under ?hich 0somethin! like a subject IcanJ a,,ear in the
order of discourse0, 5&3(6 ?hilst, on the other, he is ,resentin! a meta:authorial fi!ure ?ho founds
and endlessly circumscribes an entire discursivity)2/
Somethin! of the contradictory format of The <rder of Thin!s is certainly re,eated in this ,a,er,
thou!h Foucault does not, as ,romised, confront the ambi!uous status of the author in that te;t)
Surely in a discussion ?hich sou!ht to ,ro,ose 0a necessary criticism and reevaluation0 of the role
of the author in The <rder of Thin!s, some mention of the >ietFsche ?ho offered the
archaeolo!ical 0future to us as both ,romise and task0 mi!ht have been antici,ated in the
nei!hbourhood of a meta:authorial characterisation) But the name of >ietFsche a,,ears but once,
earlier, ,arenthetically, ?ith no connection to the @uestions of either the transdiscursive author, or
the founder of discursivity)2( Foucault, too, has im,lied that %ar; and Freud need not be the only
e;am,les, and he no?here says that discursive initiation need be restricted to the human or
social sciences) Furthermore, Foucault has many times !rou,ed to!ether >ietFsche, %ar; and
Freud as the founders of modern discourse) 'n ,articular, the essay 0>ietFsche, %ar;, Freud0 had
not so lon! a!o ar!ued that these three fi!ures o,ened u, the entire field of modern
hermeneutics, that they have established infinite inter,retative ,ossibilities)28 'ndeed, everythin!
should have dra?n Foucault to >ietFsche at this juncture and yet ?hen Foucault ?as directly
asked ?hether he considered >ietFsche to be a founder, the @uestion ?as com,letely
sideste,,ed) 3+
>aturally, there are many reasons ?hy Foucault should ?ish to avoid the >ietFschean @uestion in
this conte;t, for ?hatever statement he mi!ht make about the status of >ietFsche0s authorshi,
?ould necessarily raise the @uestion of the authority of the archaeolo!ical discourse itself) <n the
one hand, ?ere Foucault to ,resent >ietFsche as a founder, or as a transdiscursive author, ?here
then is archaeolo!y, ?ith its com,le; system of >ietFschean inheritances and de,endencies, to
be situated73& 's Foucault0s ?ork not to be seen in the same conte;t of affiliation to the
>ietFschean discourse as, say, the ?ork of e,i!onous ,sychoanalysts entertains to?ards that of
Freud7 Does not Foucault aver the necessity of a return to the >ietFschean ori!in7 Does he not
refer back to the simultaneous deaths of =od and man, to the Wbermensch, to the eternal return,
as to 0,rimary coordinates07 'n short, could it not be that the !reat labour of archaeolo!y is but
one fold ?ithin a !eneralised >ietFscheanism7
<n the other hand, ?ere ?e not to re!ard >ietFsche as a foundin! author, the ,roblem of the
archaeolo!ical recourse to >ietFsche ?ould take on a ,articularly ?orryin! as,ect) For, if
archaeolo!y is not to be situated ?ithin the s,ace of the >ietFschean discursivity, then ?hat mi!ht
the name >ietFsche si!nify in Foucault0s ,roject7 -ould not the su,erinscri,tion of the
>ietFschean subject a,,ear as the most fla!rant of 5mis6a,,ro,riations, an a,,eal to authorityA
virtually an ar!ument from authorityAin the ,rosecution of the idea of the death of man7 And like
all a,,eals to authority, mi!ht not the a,,eal itself mask a more fundamental ?ill:to:authority7
'ndeed, alon! such lines, mi!ht ?e not be!in to read the archaeolo!y of the human sciences as
>ietFsche reread his o?n essay, 0Scho,enhauer as ducator0$ 0?hat is bein! s,oken of is
fundamentally not 00Scho,enhauer as ducator00 but his o,,osite, O>ietFsche as ducatorO073*
Alle!ories <f %isreadin!
' believe that it is better to try to understand that someone ?ho is a ?riter is not sim,ly doin! his
?ork in his books, in ?hat he ,ublishes, but that his major ?ork is, in the end, himself in the
,rocess of ?ritin! his books ) ) ) The ?ork is more than the ?ork$ the subject ?ho is ?ritin! is
,art of the ?ork)
%ichel Foucault
' am told of a man ?ho sets out to make a ,icture of the universe) After many years, he has
covered a blank ?all ?ith ima!es ) ) ) only to find at the moment of death that he has dra?n a
likeness of his o?n face) This may be the case of all booksG it is certainly the case of this
,articular book)
Dor!e .uis Bor!es 32
Foucault ?as to say that the 0only valid tribute to thou!ht such as >ietFsche0s is ,recisely to use
it, to deform it, to make it !roan and ,rotest0, and that 0if the commentators say ' am bein!
unfaithful to >ietFsche that is of absolutely no interest0)33 't is, of course, not at all sur,risin! that
commentators should make this observation of Foucault0s ?ork) 9is revision or mis,rision of
>ietFsche is often so e;treme as to be barely reco!nisable as >ietFschean at all) 'n the essay
0>ietFsche, =enealo!y, 9istory0, for e;am,le, Foucault directly @uotes >ietFsche some fifty times,
and yet succeeds in ,resentin! a >ietFschean history and !enealo!y almost entirely at variance
?ith the careful e;,lications of Steme, Danto and Baufmann734 >aturally, it ?ould be churlish,
and scarcely justifiable to call Foucault to account over this) Firstly, because at a very si!nificant
level this is entirely faithful to >ietFsche0s ideas of stron! revisionism, to the e;hortations in
Narathustra that the faithful ,u,il re,ays his teacher ,oorly)3/ Secondly, because, as is so very
often noted, the >ietFschean te;ts o,en themselves to antithetical inter,retations on an
astonishin! number and variety of issuesAon history, on !enealo!y, on ,olitics, on feminism, on
tra!edy and so on) And also, as ?e have been concerned to stress, on the @uestion of man)
>othin! com,els Foucault to inter,ret >ietFsche as the avatar of a ,ost:anthro,olo!ical e,isteme,
and from first archaeolo!ical ,rinci,les, the readin! of >ietFsche in terms of a radical and darklin!
humanism ?ould seem ,ositively de ri!ueur) >or need Foucault have allo?ed >ietFsche to fi!ure
so lar!ely here) The <rder of Thin!s sho?s no @ualms before su,,ressin! the anti:subjectivist
elements in %ar;, Freud and 9eide!!er) Eet Foucault ,resents an untimely >ietFsche ?ho is
absolutely identical ?ith the counterhuman thesis of his te;t) 'n this sense, mi!ht ?e not ?onder
?herein the essential difference is to be discovered bet?een the voice of >ietFsche in The <rder
of Thin!s and that te;t0s hi!hest ho,e7 's Foucault not, here as else?here, usin! and 5in
su,,ressin! the intrinsic undecidability of >ietFsche and the @uestion of man6 deformin!
>ietFsche0s thou!ht ?hen, at every ,oint at ?hich archaeolo!y announces the comfort, the
,rofound sense of relief that accom,anies the disa,,earance of man, he makes >ietFsche stand
its surety7 'n the last analysis, as the author of archaeolo!y himself ?ould ,robably concede, it is
of absolutely no matter if Foucault is really and truly ,resentin! a revisionist >ietFscheanism, or
?hether he is usin! the name of the forefather in the manner of those arly Church authors ?ho
claimed as the ?ork of Dohn, doctrines they had themselves formulated) 3( 'n both cases, the
ideas of 0>ietFsche0 are those of the archaeolo!ist)
-ithin The <rder of Thin!s, more than in any other te;t, it ?as necessary for Foucault to deflect
attention from his o?n status as its author) By the very act of constructin! the discourse of the
,rediscursive !round, archaeolo!y indemnifies itself a!ainst the system of constraints ?hich it
enforces u,on all other discourses) The archaeolo!ist ?ill therefore al?ays be a detached
overseer, and never ,art of the discursive confi!uration itselfG as a matter of structural necessity
he ?ill be outside of time)
This situation differs ?ith res,ect to the descri,tions of the Classical and modern e,istemi, thou!h
only to the ,oint of modifyin! the @uality of tem,oral transcendence ?hich the archaeolo!ical
discourse im,licitly arro!ates to its ,ractitioner) <bviously, the descri,tion of the Classical era ?ill
of necessity take ,lace outside that arran!ement of kno?led!e, but neither can it issue from the
vanta!e ,oint of modernity, for Foucault ?ould then be ,resentin! not an understandin! of the
dee,est stratum of Classical thou!ht, but a history of the ,resent as it vie?s the ,astG an
o,eration in ?hich ?hat are called the elements of Classical thou!ht ?ould be no more than
merely material for alle!ory, for a revaluation of ho? our modern habits of thou!ht ne!otiate the
lon! distant ,ast)
%oreover, and more ?orryin!ly still, the archaeolo!ical discourse of the modern e,isteme cannot
itself belon! to the modern e,isteme, for then it could only s,eak for, and not about the rules of
formation for the anthro,olo!ical arran!ement) 'f it formed a ,art of the modern confi!uration, The
<rder of Thin!s ?ould re,resent another monument to the anthro,olo!ical era, to the discourse
on man, his destiny and ends) Bant ?rites of man as the end of all nature, 9e!el of the end and
fulfilment of man as that mystical journey of mind to?ard itself in time, %ar; of the simultaneous
dissolution and beatitude of man in classless society, >ietFsche of the Wbermensch, 9usserl of an
ultimate intersubjectivity, 9eide!!er of the she,herd of bein!Athere ?ould then be no reason not
to see in %ichel Foucault0s thesis of the:death:of:man:as:the:end:of:man the latest instance of
the modern ,reoccu,ation ?ith the eschatolo!ical horiFons of humanity)38
Eet Foucault insists that this is not the case) Archaeolo!y is a radical break ?ith anthro,olo!ism,
it trans!resses the limits of this era) -hat he does not say, ho?ever, is that in order to trans!ress
these limits, it must also transcend the formal conditions ?hich dictate to all other discourses the
!round and limit of their ,ossibility) The e,isteme must be described from the ,oint of vie? of an
ideal e;teriority) <nly from a mystical and ,rivile!ed continuum alterior to all e,istemi can the
archaeolo!ist ran!e, circumscribe and re:,resent discursive history, and only from this ,lace can
he ,roscribe its future) 4+ Foucault is therefore al?ays already in ,ossession of the
transcendence ?hich he besto?s u,on >ietFsche for in the last analysis, it is still Foucault ?ho
,ur,ortedly has uni@ue access to the true historical mission and si!nificance of the >ietFschean
discourse, he ?ho has ultimate ,o?ers of a,,ro,riation ?ithin an archaeolo!y of the human
sciences ?hich is all his o?n) 9is is the discourse of all discourses, the one site from ?hich the
rules of formation of four centuries of ?ritin! can be revealed) Foucault therefore cannot avoid
becomin! the author of his o?n te;t, and it is ,recisely the monumental and totalisin! nature of
that te;t ?hich cons,ires to make the authority of the archaeolo!ist unconscionably
,roblematic)4&
The ?hole ran!e of te;ts ?hich make more modest or local claims, those ?hich are avo?edly
im,ressionistic, fictional or subjective ?ill not im,ly transcendentally remote authorsG rather such
a subject tends to arise from hi!h ,hiloso,hical or theoretical te;ts, ,articularly in the case of
te;ts ?hichAlike Foucault0s, like 9e!el0sAattem,t to tell the truth of history, for such a tale can
only be told from the anne; of a ,ure distance, an ahistorical alterity) And ?here the ,roblems of
ideal detachment are !rave enou!h for 9e!elian history, they are entirely calamitous for a te;t
?hich seeks to lay the !host of the idealist subject) #rime amon!st the ironies of Foucault0s
,roject is that, even su,,osin! that it had succeeded in its aim, history ?ould still have been left
to de,ose the subject of archaeolo!y) Foucault has little enou!h success in oustin! those authors
?hose influence he ?ished to deny) The one subject he could never in ,rinci,le dislod!e is
%ichel Foucault)
Archaeolo!y offered no ?ays around this dilemma) -hilst 9e!elian history mi!ht attem,t to
devolve its authority onto the ?orld:animatin! =eist, in the archaeolo!ical science there can be
no such telos ?hich could assume the burden of its historical narrative$ history, in its ru,tures, its
transformations, unfolds in the mind of the archaeolo!ist, the mind ?hich sees, recounts and
motivates the story of lan!ua!e, kno?led!e, the birth and disa,,earance of man) Foucault mi!ht
only have resisted becomin! the transcendental subject of The <rder of Thin!s by inscribin! his
te;t ?ithin the determinism it ,romul!ates) As such, this ?ould re@uire Foucault to constitute the
archaeolo!ist as a historical bein! res,ondin! to the circumstances of his day, on the
understandin! that the ,ast as he ,resents it is delivered sub s,ecie modernus, and not from the
sanctity of an ideal omniscience) 't ?ould involve, that is, a situatin! of the s,eaker, an
en!a!ement ?ith his material and his times, a ,ers,ectivism in the >ietFschean sense) 4* Eet to
have done so ?ould have been to admit the im,ossibility of there ever e;istin! anythin! like an
archaeolo!y of the human sciences as The <rder of Thin!s construes this mission)
'ronically, ho?ever, it is as a historical document rather than as the te;t of documentary history
that The <rder of Thin!s seems to have resolved itself) Foucault develo,ed as an intellectual in
an environment of intense neo:Cartesianism) 9usserl0s reformulation of the Cartesian co!ito had
an im,act u,on French thou!ht com,arable to that of 9e!el u,on =erman ,hiloso,hy a century
,rior)41 Recallin! this era, Foucault has said$
As all of my !eneration, ' ?as ) ) ) formed by the school of ,henomenolo!y ) ) ) And ' believe
that, as for all of those in my !eneration, bet?een &83+ and &833 ' e;,erienced a kind of
conversion ) ) ) ?e ree;amined the 9usserlian idea that there is meanin! every?here ) ) ) And
from &833 ?e dedicated ourselves to the study of the formal conditions of the a,,earance of
meanin!)42
And ?e mi!ht ?onder to ?hat e;tent The <rder of Thin!s, in ,resentin! a lan!ua!e:centred,
subjectless era as in ,rocess of su,,lantin! ,hiloso,hies of consciousness, is the record of that
conversion) 'ndeed, ?e have it on the best authority that the ori!inal subtitle of the ?ork ?as An
Archaeolo!y of Structuralism)43 Certainly, to us today, it ?ill read more ,ersuasively as an
alle!ory of the transition from French ,henomenolo!ies and e;istentialisms to French
structuralism than as an archaeolo!y of the three !reat e,ochs of ,ost:%edieval discourse) And
like all alle!ories, its characters are ,ro;y) For 0Bantian anthro,olo!y0 ?e mi!ht read neo:
Cartesianism, or even Sartre, for 0>ietFsche0, Foucault)44 The story of The <rder of Thin!s is the
5fabulous6 story of the trium,h of >ietFsche over Bantian anthro,olo!y, and the stations of this
anta!onism are ,recisely those taken u, by Foucault and Sartre in their famous controversy
follo?in! its ,ublication)4/ Ste,hen Albert, in Bor!es0s 0The =arden of Forkin! #aths0, asks$ 0'n
the riddle ?hose ans?er is chess, ?hat is the only ,rohibited ?ord704( Foucault, ?e kno?, ?as
ever an;ious to deny any com,licity ?ith structuralism, and in res,onse to one such char!e
re,lied that not once did he use the ?ord 0structure0 in The <rder of Thin!s) 48 >either is the
name of Sartre to be found amon! its ,a!es)
After the ?ork of 0-hat is an Author70, Foucault ?ithdre? into a kind of askesis) -hen he re:
emer!ed, it ?as as a !enealo!ist, a scientist of the self ?ho no lon!er ?ished to dis,ense ?ith
the @uestion of man under the rule of his disa,,earance, but rather to in@uire into ?hat makes
man 0%an0) This decision ?as corres,ondent ?ith a revision of his o?n relationshi, to kno?led!e)
The !enealo!ist s,eaks dans le vrai of his times 5ho?ever stridently he mi!ht s,eak a!ainst it6,
he kno?s that he is ,art of the history he is ?ritin!, he kno?s that the inter,retation is al?ays, in
some sense, the inter,reter) Foucault also came to reread his earlier ?ork in these terms, sayin!$
ach time ' have attem,ted to do theoretical ?ork, it has been on the basis of elements from my
o?n e;,erienceAal?ays in relation to ,rocesses that ' sa? takin! ,lace around me) 't is in fact
because ' thou!ht ' reco!nised somethin! cracked, dully jarrin!, or disfunctionin! in thin!s ' sa?,
in the institutions ?ith ?hich ' dealt, in my relations ?ith others, that ' undertook a ,articular ,iece
of ?ork, several fra!ments of an autobio!ra,hy)O/+
This decision is the decision bet?een t?o conce,tions of authorshi,, t?o conce,tions of man)
Transcendental .ures$ .acan And The %astery <f .an!ua!e
The intense labour of archaeolo!y tau!ht its author that the end of man ?as in the strictest sense
unsayable) Any radical eschatolo!y of the subject ?ould re@uire the constitution of a subjectivity
beyond man and time as harbin!er of the disa,,earance of man in time) For Foucault there ?as
no ?ay around this im,asse and the relativisation of his o?n claims to kno?led!e ?as
necessarily concomitant ?ith a rene?al of subjective cate!ories ?ithin his ?ork) The Foucauldian
discourse is by no means uni@ue in en!enderin! insu,erable contradictions throu!h its attem,ts
to dislod!e the subjectG any determined discourse of the death of man ?ill find itself ensnared in a
similar labyrinth of transcendental ,resu,,ositions) The ?ork of that other !reat anti:subjectivist
of the modern era, Dac@ues .acan, is as surely im,licated in the folie circulaire of authorin! and
authorisin! the disa,,earance of the subject, of declarin! that no:one s,eaks)
.acan like?ise sou!ht to s,eak for an order of discourse im,enetrable to conscious reflection)
-here Foucault attem,ted to articulate a discursive unthou!ht under,innin! four hundred years
of scientific and ,hiloso,hical s,eculation, .acan ,resumed to hold a mandate for a lin!uistic
unconscious that determines all utterance, statement and te;t) Accordin! to .acan0s lin!ocentric
revision of Freudian ,sychoanalysis, the subject does not thinkG rather lan!ua!e thinks and
s,eaks the subject) 'n total contradistinction to the sum res co!itans of Descartes /& 50' IamJ a
substance of ?hich the ?hole essence or nature consists of thinkin!06, the .acanian subject is a
bein! ?hose ,ro,er essence is that it does not think) So far from derivin! e;istence from thou!ht,
as Descartes had done, the subject of structural ,sychoanalysis moves from the 5,re:<edi,al,
ima!inary6 realm of the 0' am0 throu!h the 0' think0 only to discover that it is not ?here it thinks)
Rather, if the .acanian subject e;ists at all, it e;ists there ?here it does not think, in the
unconscious ?hich s,eaks before any subject has even the illusion of thou!ht)/*
The lan!ua!e ?hich emanates from the .acanian unconscious is therefore absolutely anterior,
alterior, and ,rere@uisite to any conscious subject ?hatsoever) This unconscious lan!ua!e, the
discourse of the <ther, is adnascent ?ith ?hat .acan calls the 0symbolic order0, the domain of the
si!nifier ?hich constitutes the subject and allo?s it entry into the systems of society and culture)
This entry into the si!nifyin! chain, ho?ever, is bou!ht only throu!h denyin! the subject any
authentic selfhood, throu!h makin! the subject nothin! more than an effect of the si!nifier) The
subject thus !ains the ?orld of lan!ua!eAand therein its subjecthoodAonly throu!h losin! its
,re:lin!uistic state of ima!inary oneness ?ith nature and enterin! the symbolic system of
differences and arbitrary identifications throu!h ?hich 5for .acan6 all human society is
constructed)
9ence .acan ?ill talk every?here of the e;:centricity of the subject to itself, of the absolute lack
and loss of the subject in lan!ua!e, of 0the su,remacy of the si!nifier in the subject0 and the 0,re:
eminence of the si!nifier over the subject0)/1 .ike the archaeolo!ical arran!ement of
,rediscursive re!ularities, the symbolic order ?ould condemn the subject to derelict inarticulacy,
to bein! a muted emissary of his lan!ua!e rather than its master, an a!ent of the letter rather
than its si!natory$ 0the dis,lacement of the si!nifier determines the subjects in their acts, in their
destiny, in their refusals, in their blindnesses, in their end and in their fate ) ) ) everythin! ) ) )
?ill follo? the ,ath of the si!nifier)0/2 The la? of the si!nifier is universal) >o subject can ,ossibly
be e;em,t from dislocation, division and dis,ersalAfrom ?hat .acan calls a,hanisisAin the
,roliferation of unconscious lan!ua!e) Eet if no subject can trans!ress the la? of the si!nifier, if
all discourse is determined by the symbolic order, the ,roblem of the status of the .acanian te;t is
,osed from first ,rinci,les) 9o? can .acan s,eak for the unconscious ?ithout s,eakin! ultra vires
of his o?n theory7 9o? can he s,eak of rather than in a lan!ua!e ,rere@uisite to any subject7
-ho can s,eak from a ,osition aloof or tan!ential to the structures that determine all discourse7
-ho can s,eak for the defiles of the si!nifier ?ithout his o?n si!nifications bein! defiled in the
,rocess7 A ,rofound contradiction therefore inhabits and inhibits the te;t of structural
,sychoanalysis as its very first ,a!e is turned) <n the one hand, .acan eludes his o?n structures
and ac@uires the very mastery of discourse he deems im,ossible or, on the other, his discourse
itself submits to the la? of the si!nifier and loses any claim it mi!ht have to our attention as a
descri,tion or metalan!ua!e of the unconscious and of the corollary disa,,earance of the
subject) -ithin the te;t of the unconscious, therefore, the !enitive cannot be double) ither
.acan0s te;t is a transcendent theory of the unconscious, or it is unconscious itself and has no
more or less to say about the unconscious than any other te;t) /3 Both ,aths are, it ?ould seem,
e@ually ,erilous for the ,roject of an anti:subjectivist ,sychoanalysis) The ar!ument that .acan
merely 0reveals0 the unconscious leads back into this set of ,roblems) .acan0s revelation of the
unconscious can enjoy e;em,lary statusAover and above the free association, stream of
consciousness, echolalia or automatic ?ritin! accessible to any literate individualAonly by
im,licitly attributin! some form of muse:besto?ed ,rivile!e to itself) 'n other ?ords, .acanianism
must call to itself one of the t?o ,erennial modes of authorityAthe rational or the ,oetic)
The .acanian tradition itself has, by and lar!e, u,held the former vie?, ,referrin! to see his ?ork
as the testament of the unconscious rather than as an unconscious testament) -hilst endorsin!
the idea that no subject can ac@uire any de!ree of lin!uistic control, commentators ?ill yet
eulo!ise .acan0s astonishin! understandin! of the mechanisms and discontinuities of lan!ua!e,
the majestic facility ?ith ?hich he brin!s the ,lay of si!nification to life in his te;ts) %ore than one
critic even !oes so far as to say that .acan0s de,artures into the chthonic irrationality of
unconscious lan!ua!e betray a most a?esome authorial control$ 0.acan0s style attests to an
incontestable mastery of the ton!ue) The associations and ,lays ) ) ) are never the ,roduct of
chance, but of a ?ork of rare com,le;ity0)/4 Catherine ClLment too has said$ 0'f he makes holes in
his discourse, it0s on ,ur,oseG if he s,lutters, if he stammers, it0s not infirmity ) ) ) it0s total
mastery of the ,lay of ?ords)0// Such ma[trise thus makes .acan not only the transcendent
subject of his te;t, but of lan!ua!e also) By ?ay of miti!ation, Clement has also contended that
structural ,sychoanalysis forced u,on .acan 0a mastery he did not ?ant0) /( 9o?ever, it ?ould
a,,ear that if .acan did re,udiate this status, he did so only in the manner of the Nen ade,t ?ho
seeks to achieve mastery throu!h its renunciation)
The sublimest thin!, -ilde once remarked, is to set another before you, and .acan told his
disci,les on at least one occasion that, ?hilst they mi!ht be .acanians, he himself ?as a
Freudian) Foucault, as ?e sa?, attem,ted to mask his o?n author:ity by the introduction of a
,roso,o,oeic >ietFsche, and .acan0s insistent recourse to Freud offers similar tactical refu!e
from the ,roblem of assumin! res,onsibility for his o?n te;t) By far and a?ay the most radical
rereadin! of Freud ever ,ro,osed, the .acanian ,roject dis,lays the very reverse of any
defensive an;iety of influence)/8 Rather it insists, time and a!ain, that the ?ork of structural
,sychoanalysis be inscribed entirely ?ithin the ,arameters of the founder0s oeuvre) As he
declares in The Four Fundamental Conce,ts of #sycho:analysis, in terms that foreshado?
Foucault0s idea of the founder of discursivity$
no ,sycho:analyst can claim to re,resent, in ho?ever sli!ht a ?ay, a cor,us of absolute
kno?led!e) That is ?hy, in a sense, it can be said that if there is someone to ?hom one can
a,,ly, there can only be one such ,erson) This one ?as Freud ) ) ) 9e ?as not only the subject
?ho ?as su,,osed to kno?) 9e did kno?, and he !ave us this kno?led!e in terms that may be
said to be indestructible, in as much as, since they ?ere first communicated, they su,,ort an
interro!ation ?hich, u, to the ,resent day, has never been e;hausted) >o ,ro!ress has been
made, ho?ever small, that has not deviated ?henever one of the terms around ?hich Freud
ordered ) ) ) the ,aths of the unconscious, has been ne!lected) This sho?s us clearly enou!h
?hat the function of the subject ?ho is su,,osed to kno? is all about)(+
't ?ould of course be absurd to contest the inestimable debt borne by .acan to Freud 5all the
more ,ronounced because .acan, better than anyone, kne? ho? to ,ush the Freudian discovery
?ithin si!ht of its limits6 but such recourse, le!itimate as it is, serves the strate!ic ,ur,ose of
allo?in! .acan to s,eak as a master of lan!ua!e ?ithout acce,tin! that mastery in name) Such in
its more dece,tive as,ect is 0the function of the subject ?ho is su,,osed to kno?0) From this
subject, .acan a,,eals for licence to discourse as master ?hilst simultaneously shelterin! under
the mantle of an ardent disci,leshi,) .acan can thereby ,ro,ound freely and authoritatively ?hilst
redirectin! the ,roblems of authorisation to the father of ,sychoanalysis)
The mask ho?ever can only be ?orn for so lon!, and this strate!y, this leurre delivers .acan no
further from the ,roblem of subjectivity ,er se) A mastery of the unconscious remains an im,licit
,ostulateG a transdiscursive, meta:authorial status needs be conferred some?here ?ithin this
anti:subjectivist te;t) A subjectivity is al?ays at stake, then, be it that of .acan or Freud and, in
the latter case, structural ,sychoanalysis ?ill al?ays be left to e;,lain ho? Freud could have so
thorou!hly defied the la? of the si!nifierAan issue on ?hich .acan is cons,icuously silent) And
?hat is more, it matters but little ?hether .acan is s,eakin! in ,ro,ria ,ersona 5and therefore in
an im,ro,er ,ersona6 or in the name of the ,sychoanalytic father for in either case the .acanian
te;t has still authorised itselfA?hether throu!h Freud or notAto o,ine from a ,osition
transcendent to the universal discursive conditions it describes) >or indeed can any strate!y
divert attention from the fact that .acan did s,eak, that he s,oke to modernity ?ith an authentic,
stran!e and <r,hic sonance about the unconscious and the contem,orary crisis of subjectivity)
.acan found himself cau!ht ?ithin the same thread?ork of transcendental lures that Foucault
encountered in The <rder of Thin!s) The a,hanisis of the subject could only be articulated in both
its constative and ,erformative as,ects throu!h the deli@uescence of his o?n discourse, throu!h
his testimony of the muted subject losin! itself in the very mutedness it describes) .ike Foucault,
.acan could therefore only continue to announce the disa,,earance of the subject as a truth of
discourse by stakin! his o?n subjectivity a!ainst the entire history of discourse) -hich is a!ain to
say, that his te;t unravels not in the field of an abolished subjectivity but ?ithin the s,ace of an
uncertainty as to the nature and status of subjectivity, in ,articular that of the anti:subjectivist
himself) Such indeed is the abyss a?aitin! any author of the death of man) The subject ?ho
announces the disa,,earance of subjectivity does so only at the risk of becomin!Ainferentially at
leastAthe sole subject, the .ast and Absolute Subject, left to face his subjecthood in the face an
other?ise subjectless terrain, ever ca,tive to a mirror of soli,sism)
Confronted ?ith this eni!ma ?hereby the discourse of the death of man either necessitates
transcendin! its tenets or falls ,rey to its o?n thanato!ra,hy, it is scarcely sur,risin! that the anti:
subjectivist has every?here abandoned the choice and taken his ,lace as one ?ritin! subject
amon!st others) Both Foucault and .acan ?ere conse@uently led to redefine and s,ecify the
subject under erasure, and hence reor!anised their deconstructions around a s,ecific
instantiation of subjectivity, that of the Cartesian co!ito) Doubtless ?ith such considerations on
his a!enda, .acan came to ,romote a shar,ly focused anti:subjectivism, !enerous in its
e;clusions$
?ith the term 0subject0, ?e do not desi!nate the livin! substratum necessary for the subjective
,henomenon, nor any other kind of substance, nor any bein! of kno?led!e in its ,rimary or
secondary affectivity ) ) ) nor even in the lo!os ?hich is su,,osedly incarnated some?here, but
the Cartesian subject ?hich a,,ears the moment ?hen doubt reco!nises itself as certitudeA?ith
this difference, that from our ,ers,ective, the foundations of this subject are seen to be much
broader, but at the same time more subservient ?ith res,ect to the certitude ?hich esca,es him)
(&
-hat such a reorientation bes,eaks is that the death of man is unsustainable as a universal
statement) Distinctions bet?een the s,ecific forms of subjectivity under assault must be made if
an anti:humanist discourse is not to ,lun!e headlon! into a,oria and inconsistency) Eet the ?ork
of .acan, alon! ?ith that of Barthes and Foucault is lar!ely misread on the assum,tion that there
is only one subject in @uestion) The fact thatAafter the initial headstron! declarations had been
madeAtheir ?ork does more to contradict than to corroborate indiscriminate anti:subjectivism is
by,assed) Theorists continue to reiterate the idea that the conce,t of the subject has come to its
end, and cursorily im,licate the author in the same finitude ?ithout askin! ?ho or ?hat dies in the
death of man)
So many @uestions are re,ressed in this easy collocation of subjects) Does the death of man
necessarily im,ly the death of the author7 's the author sim,ly a s,ecific and re!ional
instantiation of the ,hiloso,hical anthro,os7 <f the subject of kno?led!e7 <f the co!ito7 <f the
lo!os7 -hat sense of the author disa,,ears in the death of man7 'ntrate;tual author7
;trate;tual author7 #sychobio!ra,hical si!nified7 'n vie? of the uncertainty, indeed the a,,arent
in!enuousness contem,orary anti:humanist critics sho? before these @uestions, ?e mi!ht
?onder if the 0death of man0 mi!ht not be an e!re!ious neutralisation of the immense ,roblematic
and myriad com,asses of subjectivityG a sim,lification such as Cali!ula dreamt of ?hen he asked
that his subjects have but one neck so he mi!ht dis,ose of them all at a sin!le strike)
Subjectivities
The theory of meanin! no? stands at a cross:roads$ either it ?ill remain an attem,t at formalisin!
meanin!:systems by increasin! so,histication of the lo!ico:mathematical tools ?hich enable it to
formulate models on the basis of a conce,tion 5already rather dated6 of meanin! as the act of a
transcendental e!o, cut off from its body, its unconscious, and also its historyG or else it ?ill attune
itself to the theory of the s,eakin! subject as a divided subject 5consciousKunconscious6 and !o
on to attem,t to s,ecify the ty,es of o,eration characteristic of the t?o sides of this s,litG thereby
e;,osin! them, that is to say, on the one hand, to bio:,hysiolo!ical ,rocesses 5themselves
already an inesca,able ,art of si!nifyin! ,rocesses$ ?hat Freud labelled 0drives06, and, on the
other hand, to social constraints 5family structures, modes of ,roduction etc)6)
Dulia Bristeva (*
The ,hiloso,hical self is not the human bein!, not the human body, or the human soul, ?ith ?hich
,sycholo!y deals, but rather the meta,hysical subject, the limit of the ?orldAnot a ,art of it)
.ud?i! -itt!enstein(1
The death of the author has taken its ,lace ?ithin a !reater closure$ that of the era of subjectivity
itself) Eet thou!h Foucault and .acan are seen to be e;em,lary in si!nallin! this common
closure, no?here do they directly conjoin the issues of man and the author)(2 'n their discourses,
as in others, the t?o deaths are used to casually evoke or am,lify one another, but no ar!ument
of any sort is ,resented as to ?hy ?e should see 0%an0 and the authorAin their lives, in their
deathsAas one and the same subject)(3
This mi!ht not seem of any ,articular si!nificance in itself, but ?hen ?e consider fe?, if any other
of the ,recursors of the death of manAnot .Lvi:Strauss, Althusser, and em,hatically not
>ietFsche and FreudAmake this connection, then ?e mi!ht ur!e a little reserve and ins,ection
before assumin! that the author is al?ays and every?here sim,ly a s,ecific instance of !enenic
0%an0G and all the more so since the !eneral closure of subjectivity is so often cited to bolster anti:
authorial theory) S,eakin! for a revolution in thou!ht, Dean:%arie Benoist declares$
'f the freedom of the te;t is asserted a!ainst the almi!hty rule of the 0author:!enerator0, and the
meanin! is acce,ted as bein! sim,ly relational, the inevitable result is a challen!e to the very
notion of the subject) The subjectivity of the author becomes of minor im,ortance in the
elucidation of the te;t, and the su,,osed subject
of the ?orkA0?hat it is about0Adisa,,ears ?hen the si!nifyin! ,lane is brou!ht into the
fore!round) This threat to subjectivity must ho?ever be seen outside the ,articular field of literary
criticism) 't relates to a ?ides,read reaction on the ,hiloso,hical level a!ainst a ,articular
inter,retation of the ,hiloso,hy of Descartes) -e mi!ht reco!nise in this modern tendency the
0end0 or at least the e;haustion of the 0co!ito e,och0) (4
Benoist summarises this develo,ment as ?ell as can be e;,ected, yet in summarisin! he re,eats
the unreflective attitude ?hich criticism and theory have brou!ht to this issue) That is to say, it is
al?ays assumed, and never in any ?ay demonstrated that the author is a sim,le subaltern or
manifestation of the subject, and is therefore inscribed ?ithin the same finitude) For sure, this
?ould seem obvious$ both the author and the ,hiloso,hical subject can be seen to enforce the
,rimacy of human consciousness over the inhuman, the unthou!htG both ,lay the role of the
,rimary creative force, in res,ect of ?hich lan!ua!e and the ?orld of the in:itself are secondary,
,assive material) Furthermore, notions such as that of the omniscient author ,artake of the same
soverei!n detachment that is the first condition of a transcendental subjectivity) 'ndeed, the
connection bet?een these subjects ?ill seem so obvious that it ?ill be said, ?ith the consonances
of ,latitude$ 000man00 and OauthorO !o hand in hand, the latter a ,articular instance of the former0)(/
That the destinies of man and author are ent?inedAand that they ?ill become all the more
ine;tricably so if our ideas of ?orld and te;t increasin!ly cohereAis incontestable) -hat is by no
means certain is that al?ays and every?here they are un,roblematically reducible to one
another)
The first meetin! ,oint of man and author in critical discourse is ?ithin the ?ord 0subject0) And it is
?ithin the ,eculiar ,ro,erties of this term itself that the commonality of their fate can be seen to
unfold, since so much of contem,orary thou!ht seems to be directed to?ard restorin! to the ?ord
its etymolo!ical ,urity ?hereby subject 5subjectus$ sub:underG jacLre:thro?n6 denotes the one
thro?n under, the one ?ho o?es fealty to a !reater ,o?er, be that ,o?er lan!ua!e, culture,
discourse, history) <ver the course of time, the ?ord subject has ac@uired the status of an
enantioseme, denotin! the soverei!nty of the transcendental e!o of ,hiloso,hies of
consciousness, ?hilst retainin! the ori!inal sense of vassala!e, subordination, and so on) -e
mi!ht even say that no other ?ordAin its ,lurisi!nificant fra!ilityAhas so eni!matically held the
crises of an era ?ithin its semantic horiFons) Co!ito, lo!os, transcendental e!o, self, to,ic, author,
,sychobio!ra,hical si!nified, even e,isteme, fall inside its com,ass) Corres,ondin!ly, ?e mi!ht
e;,ect adjectival ,recautions, @ualifications, refinements, s,ecifications as to the ,recise
desi!nation intended and so on, to herald its more ,ortentous a,,earances in formulations of the
order that 0recent ,oststructuralists have systematically deconstructed all received notions of the
subject0, (( and indeed the very rare thinker ?ill sho? him or herself scru,ulous to alert the
reader to the meanin! intended in different conte;ts) All too often, ho?ever, ?e ?ill find that the
?ord has been used, over the course of a fe? short ,a!es, to denote lo!os, co!ito, and
bio!ra,hical subject, and used in such a ?ay as to ar!ue that the attack by Derrida on the first,
and by .acan on the second, leads to a dismissal of the third as thou!h there has only ever been
one subject in @uestion) -hat is at ?ork in this sli,,a!e is a !lobal confusion of the intricate
,hiloso,hical relations bet?een self, co!ito e!o, transcendental e!o, consciousness, kno?led!e,
and creativity) Some ?ill e;tend this still further, sayin! that the subject should be ,laced
alon!side 0=od, lo!os, ousia, reason, bein! and so forth0)(8 ven, ho?ever, if divinity and reason
are omitted, the amal!am is formidable) The death of the transcendental subject is
consectaneous ?ith the death of the subject of kno?led!e, is in turn consectaneous ?ith the
death of the author as a formal ,rinci,le of te;tual meanin! ?hich is a!ain consectaneous ?ith
the disa,,earance of the ,sychobio!ra,hical) si!nified)
This chain of associations is the 0,hiloso,hical0 !roundin! of the death of the author) -hat it
states, at base, is that the denial of the co!ito erases all forms of subjectivity and the ,redicates
thereof) Certainly, it is undeniable that .Lvi:Strauss, .acan, Althusser, Derrida, Barthes, Foucault,
have brou!ht a concerted and e,ochal force to bear a!ainst the idea of an a ,riori subject
situated outside the ,lay of s,ace and time, lan!ua!e, history, culture and diffLrance) But does
this onslau!ht colla,se all senses of the subject as some ?ill say7 's the conce,t of the author
only tenable if a transcendental subjectivity is thereby desi!nated7 <r, to ask the lo!ically ,rior
and unasked @uestion$ ho? is the conce,t of the author distributed on the basis of a
transcendental subjectivity7
First and foremost, any criticism ?hich sees the author as a s,ecification of the transcendental
subject must detach the author as an em,irical a!ency from the author as the ,urely ontolo!ical
,rinci,le of the te;t) To be conceived in transcendental terms the author must be em,tied out of
all ,sycholo!ical and bio!ra,hical content$ a ,ersonalised, ,sychobio!ra,hically constituted
transcendental subject is unthinkable) The classic formulations of transcendental subjectivity
insist u,on this from the outset) The subject of Bant0s Criti@ue of #ure Reason is transcendental
a,,erce,tion, the a ,riori unity of consciousness, a ,urely formal !uarantee of objective
kno?led!e$ 0-e can assi!n no other basis ) ) ) than the sim,le, and in itself com,letely em,ty,
re,resentation O'OG and ?e cannot even say that this is a conce,t, but only that it is a bare
consciousness ?hich accom,anies all conce,ts) Throu!h this ' or he or it 5the thin!6 ?hich thinks,
nothin! further is re,resented than a transcendental subject of thou!hts \ ])0 8+ The 0'0 makes no
claim to e;istence in the ,henomenal ?orld$ it is a ,urely lo!ical subject) .ike?ise the subject of
transcendental ,henomenolo!y can have no em,irical or ,sycholo!ical content, and is located
outside of s,ace and time) 't must be e;tra?orldly in order to be a transcendental subjectivity$
#sychical subjectivity, the 0'0 and 0?e0 of everyday intent, may be as it is in itself under the
,henomenolo!ical:,sycholo!ical reduction, and bein! eidetically treated, may establish a
,henomenolo!ical ,sycholo!y) But the transcendental subjectivity ?hich for ?ant of lan!ua!e ?e
can only call a!ain, 0' myself, 0?e ourselves0, cannot be found under the attitude of ,sycholo!ical
or natural science, bein! no ,art at all of the objective ?orld, but that subjective conscious life,
itself ?herein the ?orld and all its content is made for 0us0, for 0me0)8&
A transcendental ,henomenolo!y is, therefore, to be distin!uished from all ,sycholo!ism$ 0't
?ould be much too !reat a mistake ) ) ) to make ,sycholo!ical descri,tions based on ,urely
internal e;,erience ) ) ) a !reat mistake because a ,urely descri,tive ,sycholo!y of
consciousness is not itself transcendental ,henomenolo!y as ?e have defined the latter, in terms
of the transcendental ,henomenolo!ical reduction)08*
<f course, as it has been translated onto the ,lane of literary criticism, ,henomenolo!ical method
has often failed to maintain the ri!orous and austere ,urity of the trans,ersonal 9usserlian
subject, and has drifted into ,recisely the kind of ,sycholo!ism that 9usserl ?arned a!ainst) As
#aul de %an says, in his earlier ?ork$ 0Some of the difficulties of contem,orary criticism can be
traced back to a tendency to forsake the barren ?orld of ontolo!ical reduction for the ?ealth of
lived e;,erience)081 De %an ur!ed a !reater austerity amon! critics, a concerted vi!ilance
a!ainst the 0almost irresistible tendency to rela,se un?ittin!ly into the concerns of the self as they
e;ist in the em,irical ?orld0)82 't is, ho?ever, ,ossible to discern the influence of the Bantian and
9usserlian subjects in certain o,erations to ?hich the author is ,ut, as a ,urely formal ,rinci,le, in
the verification of te;tual meanin!) The ?ork of ) D) 9irsch is instructive here) Faithfull to
9usserl, 9irsch firmly o,,oses that scion of ,henomenolo!ical criticism ?hich 0mistakenly
identifies meanin! ?ith mental ,rocesses rather than ?ith an object of those ,rocesses0, and sets
about constructin! a defence of the author ?hich eludes a subjectivist ,sycholo!ism) 83 For
9irsch, the author is a normative ,rinci,le ?hich ensures the objectivity of meanin!) Alon! a
some?hat circular ,ath, 9irsch ar!ues that since verbal meanin! is determinate and
determinable, then the ,ostulate of a determinin! ?ill is necessarily re@uired, for in the absence
of any such ?ill there ?ould be no distinction bet?een ?hat is meant, and ?hat mi!ht be meant
by a ?ord se@uence$ 0meanin!0, he says, 0is an affair of consciousness0, and there is no verbal
meanin! ?hich is not 0a ?illed ty,e0)84 Conse@uently, the author is necessary to the !roundin! of
te;tual meanin! in ,rinci,les of validation, to the establishment of objective criteria in the ?ork of
inter,retation$ 0The determinacy and sharability of verbal meanin! resides in its bein! a ty,e) The
,articular ty,e that it is resides in the author0s determinin! ?ill)08/
Bant and 9usserl both found the ,ostulate of a transcendental e!o necessary to !uarantee the
objectivity of our kno?led!e about the ?orldG only throu!h such a ,ostulate could individual
kno?led!e be reconciled to the universal) 't is easy to see ho?, in minuscule, 9irsch0s use of
authorial ?ill as the ultimate ,rinci,le of te;tual validation re,eats this lo!ic) =iven the
indeterminacy of te;tual meanin! in the absence of any adjudicatin! norm, the ,remise of
authorial ?ill is a necessary e,istemolo!ical condition of the e;istence of objective meanin!) The
author thus constituted is neither a locus of forces nor a ,sychobio!ra,hical site, but a meta,hor
for the te;t o,eratin! at the most consistent and ,lausible level of inter,retation, a ,urely formal
,rinci,le of the determinacy of te;tual kno?led!e) 'ntention is not here a vivid or a!onistic
stru!!le of an author ?ith his material, but rather the ultimate tribunal at ?hich criticisms vie, lay
claim to their truths, and consent to be jud!ed) The ,lace of the author is therefore above and
beyond the level at ?hich te;tual meanin!s conflict and contest, and it is throu!h his omnified
a!ency that these conflicts can be neutralised in the interests of a hi!her, self:verifyin! 0truth0, or
determinate meanin!)
Such a de,iction can be said to be transcendental both in the sense that it is consistently non:
em,irical, and in that it asserts the authorial ?ill as an absolute standard of authentification) 't is
to this as,ect of the author:function, and the circularity im,licit in its o,eration, that the movement
a!ainst the author takes its stron!est and most justified e;ce,tion) As Barthes com,lains, the
discovery of the author0s intentions is all too often used to close rather than o,en the
inter,retation of a te;t) 8( For Foucault, too, the !reatest reductions reside here$ 0The author is
the ,rinci,le of thrift in the ,roliferation of meanin!)088 Eet, ?hilst these objections ?arrant
considerable res,ect, to affirm the counter:ideal of im,ersonality is to fall back into the very
transcendental su,,ositions that Barthes and Foucault ?ish to evade) To re,eat ?hat ?as said
above$ there is no @uestion of a transcendental author ?ithout the total abjuration of the
,sychobio!ra,hical si!nified) 't is for this reason that the transcendental and the im,ersonal ?ill
al?ays find a common ,ur,ose, a common absence) Des,ite their antithetical startin!:,oints,
both ,ositions resolve in a shared ascetism) 'n Doyce0s A #ortrait of the Artist as a Eoun! %an,
Ste,hen Dedalus e;,lains to Cranly$
The ,ersonality of the artist, at first a cry or a cadence or a mood and then a fluid and lambent
narrative, finally refines itself out of e;istence, im,ersonalises itself, so to s,eak ) ) ) The artist,
like the =od of the creation, remains ?ithin or behind or beyond or above his handi?ork, invisible,
refined out of e;istence, indifferent, ,arin! his fin!ernails)&++
't is easy to see ho? readily the 0author:=od0 and the absence of the author meet one another,
easy to see ho? this transcendental de,iction could e@ually describe the disa,,earance of the
,oet:s,eaker in %allarmL, the im,ersonalities of liot and MalLry) Similarly, but conversely, it is
a,,arent ho? the doctrine of im,ersonality mi!ht im,ly the idea of a transcendentally remote
author) Foucault himself ?arns a!ainst the transcendental idealism recrudescent in the conce,t
of Lcriture$ 0the notion of ?ritin! seems to trans,ose the em,irical characteristics of the author
into a transcendental anonymity0)&+& 'ndeed, ?ith the im,ersonalist te;t, it is im,ossible to
determine ?hether ?hat arises is the transcendence of lan!ua!e or the transcendence of its
author) 0>early every time you use the ?ord lan!ua!e, ' could re,lace it by the ?ord thou!ht
almost ?ithout incon!ruity0,&+* the ,henomenolo!ist =eor!es #oulet could say to Barthes,
,recisely because ,henomenolo!ical subjectivity is conceived as an omni,resence of intentional
consciousness ?hich is su,erim,osed u,on the te;t like an invisible and ,erfectly isomor,hic
ma, onto the contours of a country) An ideal subject is ,osited in both cases, one under the
aus,ices of a ,utative ,resence, the other as a no less artificial absence) From the ,oint of vie?
of inter,retation, it matters little ?hether the author disa,,ears into a transcendental anne; or into
the void$ the te;t to be read is one in ?hich the ,ersonality of the author is no?here fi!ured) 't
?ould be the truest of truisms to say that im,ersonalist and bio!ra,hicist conce,tions of the te;t
stand in resolute o,,osition) Eet !iven the ,ro;imity in ?hich the im,ersonal and the
transcendental must find themselves, it follo?s that not only are the bio!ra,hical and the
transcendental thorou!hly distinct, but that these conce,tions ?ill also court a similar
incom,atibility) To constitute a bio!ra,hical subject, or a subject of desire ?ithin a te;t ?hich
,osits the transcendental uninvolvement of its author disru,ts not only his soverei!n detachment,
but the very truth claims and objectivity that such detachment reinforces) As ?e have said, it is
Foucault0s failure to inscribe himself ?ithin the history he recounts ?hich leads to the constitution
of a transcendental subjectivity ?ithin The <rder of Thin!s) As ?e also remarked, the im,lication
of authorial transcendence is all the more ,ronounced ?ithin te;ts ?hose aims are s,ecifically
constative) This is ,articularly true of ,hiloso,hical discourse ?herein im,ersonality tends to be a
coefficient of the truth value of a system or criti@ue) 9o?ever, certain ,hiloso,hers such as
%ontai!ne, Descartes, and, to a lesser e;tent, 9ume have attem,ted to narro? this distance by
introducin! autobio!ra,hical frames for their discourses, conversational intimacies, historical
locales, and so forth) 'n modern times, >ietFsche, more than any other ,hiloso,her, has been
keenly a?are of these ,roblems) The autobio!ra,hical in his te;t, his eccentric and hi!hly
,ersonalised diva!ations and detours ?ork a!ainst the ,hiloso,hical ideal of lofty
disinterestedness) &+1 %ore:over, >ietFsche did not just a,,ly this strate!y to his o?n te;ts, but
sou!ht to disillude the transcendental anonymity of ,hiloso,hical discourse by o,,osin! the
,ersonality and ,rejudices of the ,hiloso,hical author to the ostensible objectivity of his system$
-hat makes one re!ard ,hiloso,hers half mistrustfully and half mockin!ly is ) ) ) that they
dis,lay alto!ether insufficient honesty, ?hile makin! a mi!hty and virtuous noise as soon as the
,roblem of truthfulness is even remotely touched on) They ,ose as havin! discovered and
attained their real o,inions throu!h the self:evolution of a cold, ,ure, divinely un,erturbed
dialectic ) ) ) ?hile ?hat ha,,ens at bottom is that a ,rejudice, a notion, an 0ins,iration0, !enerally
a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them ?ith reasons sou!ht after the
eventAthey are one and all advocates ?ho do not ?ant to be re!arded as such, and for the most
,art no better than cunnin! ,leaders for their ,rejudices ?hich they ba,tise 0truths0 ) ) ) &+2
<f course it is inconceivable that the ,hiloso,hical labour could !et under?ay ?ithout some
attem,t at disinterestedness) 9o? indeed could a !round?ork of the meta,hysic of morals
,roceed alon! conative lines and still ,ossess value and credibility as a contribution to the
disci,line of moral ,hiloso,hy7 But this is not >ietFsche0s ,oint) #hiloso,hers ,resent their
conclusions as the outcome of strictly disinterested in@uiries into the ,roblems of truth, kno?led!e
and morality, as conse@uences absolutely necessitated by ,urely rational ,rocedures) 'n
>ietFsche0s vie?, ho?ever, this bourne is established from the outset) The te;t is ?ritten
back?ardsG the ,hiloso,her reasons from conclusions to ,remises) Scho,enhauer is by nature
moribund and misanthro,ic, thereafter he ?eaves that ?onderful vindication of ,essimism and
resi!nation kno?n to us as The -orld as -ill and Re,resentationG Bant is a reli!ious moralist,
therefore he seeks to ,rove the e;istence of the 0starry heavens above and the moral la? ?ithin0)
For the critic of ,hiloso,hical disinterestedness, the art of readin! becomes that of retracin! this
,rimordial itinerary over and a!ainst the manifest structures of the te;t) To utilise such a strate!y,
to reread the author, his desires, ,rejudices, and drives, into the ,hiloso,hical te;t, so far from
consolidatin! the idea of the ,hiloso,her as the suFerain subject of his te;t, ?orks rather to
dismantle any such ,rivile!e) This insistence on the inesca,ably autobio!ra,hical element in any
,hiloso,hy leads >ietFsche directly to the anti:transcendental theories of ?ill:to:,o?er and
!enealo!y$
't has !radually become clear to me ?hat every !reat ,hiloso,hy has hitherto been$ a confession
on the ,art of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoirG moreover, that the
moral 5or immoral6 intentions in every ,hiloso,hy have every time constituted the real !erm of life
out of ?hich the entire ,lant has !ro?n) To e;,lain ho? a ,hiloso,her0s most remote
meta,hysical assertions have actually been arrived at, it is al?ays ?ell 5and ?ise6 to ask oneself
first$ ?hat morality does this 5does he A6 aim at7 ' accordin!ly do not believe a 0drive to
kno?led!e0 to be the father of ,hiloso,hy, but that another drive has, here as else?here, only
em,loyed kno?led!e 5and false kno?led!eT6 as a tool) But anyone ?ho looks at the basic drives
of mankind to see ?hat e;tent they may in ,recisely this connection have come into ,lay as
ins,irational s,irits ) ) ) ?ill discover that they have all at some time or other ,ractised ,hiloso,hy
Aand that each one of them ?ould be only too !lad to ,resent itself as the ultimate !oal of
e;istence and as the le!itimate master of all the other drives ) ) ) 'n the ,hiloso,her ) ) ) there is
nothin! ?hatever im,ersonalG and, above all, his morality
bears decided and decisive testimony to ?ho he isAthat is to say, to the order of rank the
innermost drives of his nature stand in relative to one another) &+3
As >ietFsche understood, ,erha,s better than any other, to affirm the im,ersonality of a
,hiloso,hical system is the first ste, to?ard ascribin! that system a transcendental value and
vice versa) Conse@uently, >ietFsche ri!orously inscribed the authorial subject ?ithin the system)
Any criticism, and any theory ?hich seeks to challen!e the transcendence of a discourse ?ill thus
eventually find itself dra?n to a form of retros,ective inference 0from the ?ork to its author, from
the deed to its doer, from the ideal to him ?ho needs it, from every mode of thinkin! and valuin!
to the im,erative ?ant behind it0)&+4 So far from endorsin! one another, from belon!in! to one
another as as,ects of the same subject, the transcendental subjectivity of ,hiloso,hical systems,
and the subjectivity of the author ?ork a!ainst each other$ the inscri,tion of a bio!ra,hy, a
bio!ra,hical and biolo!ical desire ?ithin the te;t resists any theolo!y of the idealist subject) T?o
markedly distinct subjectivities are in o,,osition$ the one, trans,ersonal, e;tra?orldly, normative
and formalG the other intra?orldly, bio!ra,hical, a subject of desire, for ?ant of a better ?ord, a
0material0 subject)
The misrece,tion of >ietFsche as a ,roto:deconstructionist ?ho advocates the disa,,earance of
the author is the direct result of ne!lectin! this distinction) 'ndeed, that se!ment of The -ill to
#o?er u,on ?hich the anti:authorial a,,ro,riation of >ietFsche is based, is directed e;clusively
a!ainst the Cartesian and Bantian subjects$ an intensely focused ,hiloso,hical criti@ue of the
onto:theolo!ical e!olo!y of ,hiloso,hies of consciousness is directly mis,rised as an attack u,on
the author)&+/ 'ndeed, no readin! could be more erroneous, forAvirtually alone amon!st
,hiloso,hersA>ietFsche insisted u,on the most intimate links bet?een man and his ?orks, even,
indeed, u,on seein! this connection as an inde; of the value of a system of thou!ht$
't makes the most material difference ?hether a thinker stands ,ersonally related to his ,roblems,
havin! his fate, his need, and even his hi!hest ha,,iness thereinG or merely im,ersonally, that is
to say, if he can only feel and !ras, them ?ith the tentacles of cold, ,ryin! thou!ht) 'n the latter
case ) ) ) nothin! comes of it$ for the !reat ,roblems, !rantin! that they let themselves be
!ras,ed at all, do not let themselves be held by toads and ?eaklin!s ) ) ) &+(
The reinforcement of this connection, the humanisin! of kno?led!e, delivers thou!ht from
transcendental ,resu,,ositionsG kno?led!e becomes relative, mediated, ,ers,ectival) This
criti@ue, ?hether it be thou!ht as antihumanist or as a ne? humanism, ?as continued by Freud
and 9eide!!er, ?ho in very different ?ays, deconstructed the idea of a reified, unitary subjectivity
in the interests not of the death of man or of the author, but of re:,erceivin! human subjectivity
outside the domain of a transcendental subjectivity) For 9eide!!er, the rejection of humanism did
not e;tend to anythin! resemblin! a rejection of the @uestion of man) To the contrary, the
@uestion of man remained the @uestion of ,hiloso,hyG ?hat is re@uired, rather, is the redistribution
of this @uestion on the basis of a non:transcendental ontolo!y 0in ?hich the essence of man,
determined by Bein! itself is at home ) ) ) 0) &+8 Such a redistribution does not involve the broad
curtailment that humanists and antihumanists alike stake as the !round of their confrontation$
0%an is not the lord of bein!s) %an is the she,herd of bein!) %an loses nothin! in this OlessOG
rather he !ains in that he attains the truth of Bein!)0)&&+ >o im,overishment of man0s uni@ue
e;istence, his rationality is im,lied here, @uite the reverse$ 09umanism is o,,osed because it
does not set the humanitas of man hi!h enou!h)0&&&
The residual and endurin! demand of these discourses is not to think ?ithout man but to rethink
the @uestion of man ?ithin a ,ost:meta:,hysical ontolo!y) The ?ork of >ietFsche, Freud,
9eide!!erA%ar; alsoAo,ens out onto a sense of the subject, of the author, ?hich is no lon!er
normative but disclosive, not timeless but rootedly historical, not an aeterna veritas but mutable,
in ,rocess of becomin!, not transcendent but immanent in its te;ts, its time and ?orld) 'ndeed it
?ould seem that all antihumanist discourse finally makes overture to a ne? form of humanism,
that the rejection of the subject functions as a ,assa!e?ay bet?een conce,tions of subjectivity)
As the most recent re,resentation of the movement a!ainst man, Foucault0s ?ork no more
esca,es the @uestion of man than did that of >ietFsche, %ar;, Freud or 9eide!!er) From
%adness and CiviliFation ?here he attem,ted to !ive voice to unreason in man0s e;,erience
throu!h his studies of the constitution of the subject in ,o?er to The 9istory of Se;uality in ?hich
discourse is recentred on the subject as a subject of desire,&&* Foucault0s cor,us can be read as
a ,rolon!ed meditation on the @uestion of subjectivity rather than on the absence of the subjectG a
meditation in ?hich the death of man functions as a ,hase of hy,erbolic doubt ?herefrom the
,roblem of man can be reassessed in the absence of transcendental ,resu,,ositions)
'n 0The Subject and #o?er0 Foucault in fact says that the !oal of contem,orary thou!ht is 0to
,romote ne? forms of subjectivity throu!h the refusal of the kind of individuality ?hich has been
im,osed on us for several centuries0) &&1 -hen ?e consider that The <rder of Thin!s had
construed this individuality as essentially divided, not only from others but from itself, this task
may ?ell be read as that of ,romotin! a dealienated subjectivity no lon!er s,lit bet?een
transcendental and em,irical essences, bet?een a soverei!n co!ito on the one hand and an
im,enetrable unthou!ht on the other) Alon! these lines, ?e mi!ht even vie? Foucault0s statement
in The <rder of Thin!s that 0modern thou!ht is advancin! to?ards that re!ion ?here man0s <ther
must become the Same as himself ?ith a different eye, as the messianic mission of the
Foucauldian ,roject)&&2 Certainly, from the vanta!e of any future humanism, Foucault0s analyses
of ,sychiatric, ,olitical, se;ual and carceral modes of subjection, his !enealo!ical sciences of the
selfAalon! ?ith the thou!ht of the 0antihumanist0 movement in !eneralA?ill seem of
immeasurably !reater value than the summary 0humanist0 objections ?ith ?hich they have been
confronted) There may be a certain irony in the fact that antihumanist discourse has ,rovided the
most si!nificant directions in the theory of the subject, but there is not ,arado;$ for the thou!ht of
the death of man cannot but beAin the most insistent, en!a!ed formAthe thinkin! of man about
man)
1
%isread 'ntentions
Structuralism attem,ted to rescue lan!ua!e from the oblivion to ?hich -estern meta,hysics had
consi!ned it, but failed to ,ose the @uestion of ?ritin!) For Dac@ues Derrida this omission ?as not
just a sim,le over:si!ht, but the last and latest reinforcement of a meta,hysics of ,resence 5as
old as #lato6 ?hich has al?ays and every?here re,ressed the ?ritten si!n and modelled
lan!ua!e accordin! to meta,hors of self:,resence and vocalisation) 'n order to uncover and
contest this re,ression, Derrida devoted himself durin! the &84+s to ,rofoundly intrinsic readin!s
of ,hiloso,hers such as #lato, Rousseau, 9e!el, 9usserl and .Lvi:Strauss, destined to sho? that
every attem,t to subordinate ?ritin! to the immediate e;,ressiveness and full self:,resence of
s,eech ?as obli!ed to ,resu,,ose a ,rior system of !ra,hicity entirely at odds ?ith the declared
intent) 'n each of these readin!s, Derrida0s method ?as to remain ,ainstakin!ly faithful to the
letter of the te;t, and the result ?as invariably a hi!hly technical, in?ard analysis ?ithin ?hich the
relationshi, of these te;ts to the !eneral history of meta,hysics ?as constantly im,lied, but never
stated in any systematic fashion)
'n <f =rammatolo!y 5&84/6, ho?ever, Derrida locates his readin!s of Saussure, .Lvi:Strauss and
Rousseau ?ithin a historical and structural thematic of the meta,hysical ,rivile!e accorded to
s,eech over ?ritin!) & -ithin this te;t, and because of its concern ?ith broad historical structures,
the @uestion of the author becomes most visible ?ithin the classic deconstructive ,eriod)*
>aturally, if ?e are even to a,,roach the ,hiloso,hical conte;t in ?hich the author ,roblematic is
here inserted, then ?e ?ill need to de,art initially from s,ecifically literary:critical issues)
%oreover, it is only a!ainst the back!round of the deconstruction of meta,hysics that Derrida0s
o,,osition to the author in <f =rammatolo!y can be clearly a,,raised) 'n this e;,ository ,hase, it
?ill also be necessary to by,ass numerous reservations and detours, in ,articular the issue of
?hether the deconstruction of meta,hysics is not itself the most radical continuation of
meta,hysics, the last meta,hysician al?ays findin! his ?ork continued by the latest)
Authors <f Absence
The movement a!ainst meta,hysics is by no means ne? ?ith Derrida) 'ndeed, it has been a
recurrent theme in modern ,hiloso,hy) Derrida does not, ho?ever, take his lead from the
,hiloso,hers of the Mienna Circle ?ho sou!ht to dis,el meta,hysical @uestions on account of
their unintelli!ibility, but from >ietFsche and 9eide!!er ?hose ?ork directly en!a!ed ?ith
meta,hysical thou!ht in order to disturb its very foundations) Derrida himself insists that his
,roject is to be understood as a continuation of their criti@ues, ,articularly so in the case of
9eide!!er ?hose rereadin! of the history of ,hiloso,hy functions as a continually invoked ,rete;t
for the Derridean deconstruction) Follo?in! u,on >ietFsche0s identification of all meta,hysical
systems ?ith the theolo!ical @uestion, 9eide!!er came to conceive of meta,hysics as onto:
theolo!y, the determination of bein! as ,resence) From #armenides and #lato on?ard, says
9eide!!er, bein! has been conceived as a sim,le unity, a fully self:,resent ori!in and !round) 1
9eide!!er accordin!ly sa? the task of deconstructin! meta,hysics as a relentless interro!ation of
the notion of bein! such as it had been rendered by onto:theolo!y, and the ,ursuit of a !roundin!
of bein! more ,rimordial than that of unitary and indivisible self:,resence)
'n his ?ork subse@uent to Bein! and Time, 9eide!!er e;,licitly sou!ht this ,rior 5and
un!roundin!6 !round of bein! in ?hat he called the ontolo!ical difference, or the difference
bet?een bein! and bein!s)2 -hat the thou!ht of bein! as ,resence ne!lects is that bein! in the
abstract is not the same as the thin!s:that:are, that e;istence is not one and the same as
e;istents) Bein! is somethin! to?ard ?hich bein!s maintain a relationshi,, onto ?hose ,romise
they o,en) The difference is both s,atial and tem,oral) 0S,atial0 because ?hilst ?e can say that
bein!s are here and there, bein! itself is never any?here, but beyond and transcendent of
bein!sG 0tem,oral0 because bein! is conceived as the timeless essence of bein!s ?hilst bein!s
themselves are al?ays subject to their seasons in that they can ,ass in and out of e;istence at
any time)
This difference is then distributed into the difference bet?een ,resence and the ,resent in
accordance ?ith the ever:,resentness of bein! and the finitude of bein!s) <ntolo!ical difference,
9eide!!er insists, is the ,rimary unthou!ht of meta,hysics such that it cannot be thou!ht ?ithin
the horiFons of -estern onto:theolo!y) To think the difference, therefore, is to think the end of
meta,hysics, of bein!:as:,resence$ 0The essence of ,resencin!, and ?ith it the distinction
bet?een ,resencin! and ?hat is ,resent, remains for!otten) The oblivion of Bein! is oblivion of
the distinction bet?een Bein! and bein!s) 3
-hat for 9eide!!er is the finishin! line is for Derrida some?here near the start, in that he acce,ts
the force and validity of both 9eide!!er0s history of meta,hysics as the history of the
determination of bein! as ,resence, and the ,ursuit of a breach ?ith that tradition via the
uncoverin! of an ori!inary difference) #resu,,osin!, therefore, much that is dee,ly @uestionable
in 9eide!!er0s readin! of the history of ,hiloso,hy, the Derridean deconstruction becomes, and
remains, the task of radicalisin! these t?o ,hases of the 9eide!!erian te;t) Derrida0s first ste,
alon! this road is to re?ork the history of ,resence in terms of the ,rivile!in! of s,eech over
?ritin!) Accordin! to Derrida, the notion of s,eech, as it has been al?ays and every?here
identified ?ith fully self:,resent meanin!, is related ,rimally to the notion of ,resence in !eneral$
0The system of lan!ua!e associated ?ith ,honetic:al,habetic ?ritin! is that ?ithin ?hich
lo!ocentric meta,hysics, determinin! the sense of bein! as ,resence, has been ,roduced) This
lo!ocentrism, the e,och of the full s,eech, has al?ays ,laced in ,arenthesis, sus,ended, and
su,,ressed for essential reasons, all free reflection on the ori!in and status of ?ritin!)0 5216 The
basis of this system resides in the association of the si!nified ?ith ,resence, and the si!nifier ?ith
the absence of a si!nified ,resence$ 0The formal essence of the si!nified is ,resence0, Derrida
?rites, 0and the ,rivile!e of its ,ro;imity to the lo!os as ,hone is is the ,rivile!e of ,resence)0 5&(6
As its coina!e su!!ests, lo!ocentrism desi!nates thou!ht centred u,on the lo!os, ?hereby lo!os
desi!nates not only the ?ord of =od, science and lo!ic, but the broad conce,tual system of
-estern meta,hysics$ the thin! in itself, essence, ori!in, ,ure consciousness, identity, ,resence,
bein! as ,resence) -here Derrida0s thou!ht here !oes beyond 9eide!!er is in assertin! that the
meta,hysical determination of bein! as ,resence could only have been ,roduced as the outcome
of the re,ression of ?ritin!, and that lo!ocentrism is therefore the ,rior condition of onto:theolo!y,
the latter bein! ,roduced as an effect of the valorisation of the lo!os or fully self:,resent meanin!)
%eta,hysics could not have be!un to install the thou!ht of ,resence at the ori!in ?ithout havin!
al?ays already re,ressed the ,rimacy of the si!nifier over the si!nified, the ,rimacy of the si!n
re,resentin! ,resence:in:its:absence over ,resence itself) .o!ocentrism is not itself ,art of the
meta,hysics of ,resence, the meta,hysics of ,resence is the effect of lo!ocentrism) The
reduction of ?ritin! is the necessary and sufficient condition, of the e,och of onto:theolo!yG it has
,roduced 0the !reatest totality ) ) ) ?ithin ?hich are ,roduced, ?ithout ever ,osin! the radical
@uestion of ?ritin!, an the -estern methods of analysis, e;,lication, readin!, or inter,retation0)
5246
This reco!nition then ,re,ares the ?ay for the second ,hase of Derrida0s attem,t to ,ass throu!h
and beyond the 9eide!!erian deconstruction) 4 'f the for!ettin! of ?ritin!, the si!n, or 0trace0 as
Derrida often calls it, is the ,recondition of the e,och of meta,hysicsAbehind and before the
determination of bein! as ,resenceAthen the liberation of the si!nifier ?ill unleash a ,re:
ori!inary difference still more ,ristine than that bet?een bein! and bein!s) -hilst it must be that
all meta,hysics rests u,on the ,rivile!in! of the ,hone via the erasure of ?ritin!, then the
breachin! of meta,hysics ?ill consist in the ,ro,a!ation of ?ritin! as a difference ?hich ,recedes
ontolo!ical difference as the unthou!ht of meta,hysicsG a ?ritin! ?hich, as ?e kno?, is thou!ht
as diffLrance, a differin! and deferrin! 5non6,rinci,le ?hich ,roduces not only the illusion of
,resence, but the very ,ossibility of differentiation in the first ,lace) Such a ?ritin!, if it could be
thou!ht, if it could be ?ritten, ?ould re,resent a breach ?ith meta,hysics, more ,o?erful, more
fundamental than the ontolo!ical difference ?hich ?ould then take its ,lace as the final limit of
meta,hysical conce,tuality and the first of the 0intrameta,hysical effects of diffLrance0$/
the determinations ?hich name difference al?ays come from the meta,hysical order) This holds
not only for the determination of difference as the difference bet?een ,resence and the ,resent
5An?esenKAn?esend6, but also for the determination of difference as the difference bet?een
Bein! and bein!s ) ) ) There may be a difference still more unthou!ht than the difference
bet?een Bein! and bein!s) -e certainly can !o further to?ard namin! it in our lan!ua!e) Beyond
Bein! and bein!s, this difference, ceaselessly differin! from and deferrin! 5itself6, ?ould trace
5itself6 5by itself6 L this diffLrance ?ould be the first or last trace if one could still s,eak, here, of
ori!in and end)
Such a diffLrance ?ould at once, a!ain, !ive us to think a ?ritin! ?ithout ,resence and ?ithout
absence, ?ithout history, ?ithout cause, ?ithout archia, ?ithout telos, a ?ritin! that absolutely
u,sets all dialectics, all theolo!y, all teleolo!y, all ontolo!y)( So very much indeed ?ould seem to
be at stake in the for!ettin! and rememberin! of ?ritin!) 'n the =rammatolo!y, Derrida ,ro,oses
a 0theoretical matri;0Aa 0structural fi!ure as much as a historical totality0 5l;;;i;6Aof this
re,ression) And Derrida does not use the ?ord 0totality0 li!htly here) .o!ocentrism, ?e are to
believe, has controlled 0in one and the same order0$
&) the conce,t of ?ritin! in a ?orld ?here the ,honeticisation of ?ritin! must dissimulate its o?n
history as it is ,roducedG
*) the history of 5the only6 meta,hysics, ?hich has, in s,ite of all differences, not only from #lato
to 9e!el 5even includin! .eibniF6 but also, beyond these a,,arent limits, from the ,re:Socratics to
9eide!!er, al?ays assi!ned the ori!in of truth in !eneral to the lo!os$ the history of truth, of the
truth of truth, has al?ays been ) ) ) the debasement of ?ritin!, and its re,ression outside 0full0
s,eech)
1) the conce,t of science or the scientificity of scienceA?hat has al?ays been determined as
lo!ic ) ) ) 516
And, over the ,a!e, Derrida says that the subordination of s,eech to ?ritin! is 0the historical ori!in
and structural ,ossibility of ,hiloso,hy as of science, the condition of the e,isteme0) 526
-ithin such a vast, unified, and all:inclusive e,isteme, the ?ork of individual authors ?ill serve
merely as indices, as re!ional instances of the infrastructural net?ork of lo!ocentric
determinations) Thus, thou!h half of the te;t is !iven over to a massively detailed readin! of
Rousseau, no es,ecial si!nificance is accorded to Rousseau0s te;t as suchG the readin! is, as
Derrida says, 0the moment, as it ?ere, of the e;am,le0 5l;;;i;6G ?hat ?e are readin! is not a te;t
by a ,articular author, but one meetin! ,oint amon!st so many others of the lo!ocentric
meta,hysics ?hich has !overned -estern thou!ht from its be!innin!s do?n to the ,resent day$
before askin! the necessary @uestions about the historical situation of Rousseau0s te;t, ?e must
locate all the si!ns of its a,,urtenance to the meta,hysics of ,resence, from #lato to 9e!el,
rhythmed by the articulation of ,resence u,on self:,resence) The unity of this meta,hysical
tradition should be res,ected in its !eneral ,ermanence throu!h all the marks of a,,urtenance,
the !enealo!ical se@uences, the stricter routes of causality that or!anise Rousseau0s te;t) -e
must reco!nise, ,rudently and as a ,reliminary, ?hat this historicity amounts toG ?ithout this, ?hat
one ?ould inscribe ?ithin a narro?er structure ?ould not be a te;t and above all not Rousseau0s
te;t ) ) ) There is not, strictly s,eakin!, a te;t ?hose author or subject is Dean:Dac@ues
Rousseau) 5*246 The ,ro,er name is an im,ro,er variation on the common name) That the te;t
has even to make ,rovisional recourse to the names of authors is a re!rettable e;,edience) For
entirely ,reliminary ,ur,oses of concision and clarity, ?e locate a body of te;ts arbitrarily
assembled under the si!nature 0Rousseau0, but ?e do so on the understandin! that the name
0Rousseau0 is under erasure throu!hout, that, strictly s,eakin!, it has no meanin!, si!nifies
absence)
Eet, from the very first, the =rammatolo!y cannot be entirely secure on this issue) For is there not
5even ?ith the necessary ,recautions6 a contradiction involved in continuin! over hundreds of
,a!es to talk about a Rousseauian te;t ?hen no such thin! ,ro,erly e;ists7 9o? can ?e, in all
consistency, utilise that ?hose e;istence ?e contest 0at root07 As ?e kno?, Derrida has inherited
from 9eide!!er numerous strate!ies ?ith ?hich to ne!otiate the sayin! of the strictly unsayable)
%ost notably the ,ractice of ?ritin! under erasure 5in tandem ?ith the vi!ilant use of ,arentheses,
@uotation:marks6 ?hereby ?ords such as 0is0, 0,resence0, continue to be de,loyed, not because
?e ?ish to reconfirm the meta,hysic al?ays inherent in their enunciation, but in des,air of any
other lan!ua!e ?ith ?hich to s,eak) And it ?ould seem entirely de rQ!le to allo? this concession,
for ?ithout it there ?ould be either no ,ossibility of 9eide!!er and Derrida ?ritin!, or of our
readin! their ?ork) Eet to e;tend this concession to the =rammatolo!y0s a,,ro,riation of
Rousseau is not the same thin! at all, for nothin! in ,rinci,le com,els Derrida to the vast and
dis,ro,ortionate attention besto?ed u,on this sin!le author) -ithin the 0a!e of meta,hysics0 he
demarcates 5Descartes to 9e!el6, he could have read the ?orks of Descartes, .eibniF, Berkeley
and so forth, and not e;clusively those of Rousseau on trust that they most revealin!ly re,resent
this e,och of lo!ocentrism) And there is far !reater unease on this issue than any other in the
=rammatolo!y) 'f ?e follo? this im,ortant ,ara!ra,hA?hich belon!s to the 0'ntroduction to the
00A!e of Rousseau000Ain its shiftin! moods$
The names of authors or doctrines have here no substantial value) They indicate neither identities
nor causes) 't ?ould be frivolous to think that 0Descartes0, 0.eibniF0, 0Rousseau0, 09e!el0, etc), are
names of authors, of the authors of movements or dis,lacements that ?e thus desi!nate) The
indicative value that ' attribute to them is first the name of a ,roblem) 'f ' ,rovisionally authorise
myself to treat this historical structure by fi;in! my attention on ,hiloso,hical or literary te;ts, it is
not for the sake of identifyin! in
them the ori!in, cause, or e@uilibrium of the structure) But as ' also do not think that these te;ts
are the sim,le effects of structure, in any sense of the ?ordG as ' think that all conce,ts hitherto
,ro,osed in order to think the articulation of a discourse and of an historical totality are cau!ht
?ithin the meta,hysical closure that ' @uestion here, as ?e do not kno? of any other conce,ts
and cannot ,roduce any others, and indeed shall not ,roduce so lon! as this closure limits our
discourseG as the ,rimordial and indis,ensable ,hase, in fact and in ,rinci,le, of the develo,ment
of this ,roblematic, consists in @uestionin! the internal structure of these te;ts as sym,tomsG as
that is the only condition for determinin! these sym,toms themselves in the totality of their
meta,hysical a,,urtenanceG ' dra? my ar!ument from them in order to isolate Rousseau, and, in
Rousseauism, the theory of ?ritin!) Besides, this abstraction is ,artial, and it remains, in my vie?,
,rovisional) Further on, ' shall directly a,,roach the ,roblem ?ithin a 0@uestion of method0) 5886
Sin!ular difficulties have be!un to emer!e) -hat be!ins as a confident disclaimer of the author
!radually lurches into hesitation and ,ost,onement) Thou!h the ,assa!e seems to be assertin!
the redundancy of the author, it finally issues as an a,olo!y for the uses the =rammatolo!y is
subse@uently to make of Rousseau) >ot that the ,roblem is sufficiently treated hereAas Derrida
says, its direct address is to be a?aited) But nevertheless, ?e are asked to acce,t a te;t ?hich
?ill a,,ear for all the ?orld to be Rousseauian, and of uni@ue im,ortance in the history of
lo!ocentrism, on the conditions that it is not a te;t ?hose author and subject is Rousseau, and
that it is no more than a mere instance of lo!ocentrism)
The ambivalence of this ,osition !enerates numerous contradictory statements throu!hout the
=rammarolo!y) 'ntroducin! the 0A!e of Rousseau0, ?e are told that Rousseau0s te;t occu,ies 0a
sin!ular ,osition0 58/6 in the history of meta,hysics, ?hilst later it is said$ 0Rousseau, as ' have
already su!!ested, has only a very relative ,rivile!e in the history that interests us0) 5&4*6
Similarly, thou!h there is no te;t ?hose author is Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, ?e are informed that
0somethin! irreducibly Rousseauist is ca,tured0 5&4&6 in Derrida0s readin!) Furthermore, ?hen
Derrida a,,roaches the issue ?ith a 0@uestion of method0, thou!h much else besides is
discussed, the @uestion of Rousseau0s status is treated still more e;i!uously, and is effectively
closed no sooner than it is o,ened) 8
-hat e;i!encies force Derrida into this a?k?ard, and as he ?ould say, embarrassed ,osition vis:
^:vis Rousseau7 -hy does he never attem,t an ans?er to this @uestion ?hich every?here
,resses u,on the =rammatolo!y7 Another ?ay of ,resentin! this dilemma ?ould be to ask$ if
lo!ocentrism is all:,ervasive ?hy make one author stand surety for 0the reduction of ?ritin!
,rofoundly im,lied by the entire a!e0, 58(6 and e;amine this re,ression in the innermost recesses
of his cor,us7 Derrida could surely have traced the lo!ocentric arran!ement sym,tomatically
across that a!e of meta,hysics bet?een Descartes and 9e!el) >ot that there is insufficient s,ace
for such an undertakin!) After all, a lar!e section of the analysis of this a!e is !iven over to .Lvi:
Strauss, on account of his fidelity to Rousseau) &+ And, for that matter, ?hy .Lvi:Strauss rather
than Descartes, .eibniF, or any other of those thinkers ?ho actually belon!ed to the Classical
A!e7
Ans?ers to these @uestions are ,led!ed but ,ost,onedG much in the manner that im,ossible
,romises find their fulfilment assi!ned to the distant future in the ho,e they ?ill then be for!otten)
And for !ood reason, since these @uestions bear not only u,on the deconstruction of
lo!ocentrism, but more ,rimally u,on its construction) -hat, then, is the status of Rousseau as
an instance of lo!ocentricity7 -hat are the uses to ?hich he is ,ut in the =rammatolo!y7
9ors:Te;te
Derrida0s analysis of Rousseau ,resented the critical establishment ?ith a formidable and
un,recedented model of readin!, ?hereby the critic demonstrates at !reat len!th, and ?ith
e;em,lary ri!our, that a te;t finally says @uite the reverse of ?hat its author intended) Rousseau0s
ssay on the <ri!in of .an!ua!es entirely turns back u,on itself, his conce,tion of ?ritin! as the
su,,lement of s,eech issues, ?ithin the te;t itself, as more ori!inary than s,eech both in s,ite,
and because of its author0s determination to say e;actly the o,,osite) A counter:lo!ic of
su,,lementanity, traced ?ith tenacious intricacy throu!hout the Rousseauian te;t, every?here
undermines the romantic thesis of a ,ure, immediate vocality ,rior to all inscri,tion) -hile
Rousseau ?ants to say that ?ritin! is an e;terior addition to the self:,resence of s,eech, his te;t
continually ,resu,,oses that ?ritin! is also the 0su,,lement0 of s,eech in a second sense
?hereby it is seen to com,ensate for a lack ?hich has already a,,eared in the notion of ori!inary
,resence) These t?o contradictory meanin!s or virtualities of the ?ord 0su,,lement0 co:inhere
throu!hout Rousseau0s analyses ?ith an effect so disru,tive that ?hat his te;t inscribes at the
ori!in of lan!ua!es is a su,,lement at the ori!in, a 0?ritin! that takes ,lace before and ?ithin
s,eech0) 51&36 -ithin the course of this ser,entine, and ,rofoundly in?ard inter,retation, Derrida
also evolved a method of readin! ?hich combines the technical resources of both ,hiloso,hical
and literary criticism in a ,articularly fertile, so,histicated and challen!in! manner) @ually at
ease ?ith Rousseau0s fiction and his ,hiloso,hical discourses, the =rammatolo!y takes u, a
uni@ue ,osition at the eni!matic threshold bet?een literary and ,hiloso,hical analysis, bet?een
these t?o disci,lines ?hich are so near and so occulted to one another) As ?e kno?, this
si!nificant achievement has had re!rettable conse@uences for Derrida0s rece,tion in the
,hiloso,hical community, but it has si!nally contributed to the e;citement and enthusiasm ?hich
his ?ork has ins,ired in literature de,artments) Eet, mirrorin! its divided rece,tion, the te;t tends
to be read literally in t?o halves) #articularly in that the inter,retation of Rousseau is often read
aside from its conte;t, as thou!h it did not form 0#art ''0 of a te;t called <f =rammatolo!y, as
thou!h it ?ere not, as Derrida insists, to be connected to the theoretical ,ro,osals ,resented in
the first half of the te;t)
Derrida o,ens his readin! in a manner ?hich ?ill seem most unlikely if ?e consider the fore!oin!
,rescri,tions concernin! the absence of Rousseau as author) So far from commencin! ?ith a
readin! of the su,,lement in Rousseau0s theory of lan!ua!e, Derrida devotes a cha,ter entitled
0That Dan!erous Su,,lement0 to tracin! the su,,lement ?ithin Rousseau0s 5auto6bio!ra,hical
e;,erience) 'ndeed the t?o, life and ?ork, are to be thou!ht as one$
?e must ) ) ) think Rousseau0s e;,erience and his theory of ?ritin! to!ether, the accord and the
discord that, under the name of ?ritin!, relate Dean:Dac@ues to Rousseau, unitin! and dividin! his
,ro,er name) <n the side of e;,erience, a recourse to literature as rea,,ro,riation of ,resence,
that is to say, as ?e shall see, of >atureG on the side of theory, an indictment a!ainst the
ne!ativity of the letter, in ?hich must be read the de!eneracy of culture and the disru,tion of the
community) 5&226
Accordin!ly, 0That Dan!erous Su,,lement0 be!ins by endorsin! the traditional
,sychoblo!ra,hical inter,retation ?hich sees Rousseau0s turn to ?ritin! as a means of
com,ensatin! 5su,,lementin!6 for his feelin!s of inade@uacy in normal social life) That this is as
auteurist an itinerary as can be follo?ed does not detain or ,erturb Derrida, and he @uickens his
ste, alon! this ,ath by connectin! the ,sycho,atholo!ical im,ulse that drives Rousseau to ?rite
?ith his masturbatory ,ractices) .ike ?ritin!, masturbation 5?hen accom,anied by object:fantasy6
is a su,,lement or ,ro;y of lived e;,erience, an ima!o of an unattainable or unmasterable
,resence$ in Rousseau0s case of a morbidly feared ,lenitude enhoused in the acts of s,eech and
co,ulation) -ritin! and masturbation alike are methods of masterin! ,resence in the mode of
absence, and ?ith Rousseau they are so indissolubly linked that ?e can say$ 0't is from a certain
determined re,resentation of Ocohabitation ?ith ?omenO that Rousseau had to have recourse
throu!hout his life to that ty,e of dan!erous su,,lement that is called masturbation, and that
cannot be se,arated from his activity as a ?riter) To the end)0 5&336
But the su,,lementary chain linkin! Rousseau0s e;,erience to his ,hiloso,hy of lan!ua!e does
not end here) Derrida then ,roceeds to co:im,licate the absence of a 0real0 mother in Rousseau0s
life ?ith the lo!ic of deferral and substitution) 9avin! 5it is ?idely su,,osed6 lost his ,natural0
mother in childbirth, Rousseau0s life ?as thereafter ,o,ulated by a chain of surro!ates) 'n his
relationshi, ?ith ThLrQse, ?hich is itself su,,lemented via the dan!erous vice of masturbation,
Rousseau also discovers the su,,lement of his ado,tive mother ?ho is herself the su,,lement of
the 0true0 mother) And yet, for Derrida, even this natural mother is not outside the chain of
su,,lementary substitutions$ 0Dean:Dac@ues could thus look for a su,,lement to ThLrQse only on
one condition$ that ) ) ) ThLrQse herself be already a su,,lement) As %amma ?as already the
su,,lement of an unkno?n mother, and as the Otrue motherO herself, at ?hom the kno?n
O,sychoanalysesO of the case of Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau sto,, ?as also in a certain ?ay a
su,,lement)0 5&346
The attem,t to retrace this chain to any 0natural0, or 0first0 mother is therefore condemned in
advance to the vain re!ress that Rousseau0s te;t encounters in attem,ts to uncover the ori!in of
lan!ua!e) At the ?ell:s,rin! there ?ill al?ays be another source, a ,re:ori!inary substitution, a
further su,,lement of a ,resence itself irremediably absent like the lost mother) And it is easy to
see ho? this endless and hollo? su,,lementarity ?ill resonate at the heart of Rousseau0s ,olitical
,hiloso,hy, ?herein the @uest of a ,ure state of nature ?ill ceaselessly run u, a!ainst ,roto:
cultural forces) 'n all these areas, the thou!ht of an ori!inary ,resence is destined to discover a
su,,lement at the ori!in, the su,,lement of an ori!in itself su,,lementary, a ,resencin! absence,
an absentin! ,resence)
>aturally such an inter,retation assumes the !reatest de!ree of communication bet?een
Rousseau0s life and ?ork) 'ndeed its stren!th resides in the felicity ?ith ?hich Derrida evokes a
,urely Rousseauian ?orld ?herein se;ual, social and maternal neuroses, an essay on the ori!in
of lan!ua!es, and a ,olitical ,hiloso,hy of uncorru,ted ori!ins are ,atterned and fi!ured around
the deviant lo!ic of the su,,lement) As such, 0That Dan!erous Su,,lement0 re,eats not only the
content but the format and ethos of traditional ,sychoblo!ra,hy) But such an e;cursion is the last
thin! ?e have been ,re,ared to e;,ect from the =rammatolo!y, or Derridean deconstruction in
!eneral) 9o? is this cha,ter, ?ith its trou,e of bio!ra,hical fi!ures, to be reconciled to the
injunction that 0the names of authors ) ) ) have here no substantial value0, that they 0indicate
neither identities nor causes07 >o sooner does Derrida de,art from the ,sychobio!ra,hical locale
of the su,,lement than he raises a @uestion of method)
Readin! Rousseau in terms of autoeroticism and mother:substitutions cannot, ?e are told, be
deemed ,sychoanalytic in the customary sense) 9ere Derrida0s accents are distinctly .acanian$
Althou!h it is not commentary, our readin! must be intrinsic and remain ?ithin the te;t) That is
?hy, in s,ite of certain a,,earances, the locatin! of the ?ord su,,lement is here not at all
,sychoanalytical, if by that ?e understand an inter,retation that takes us outside of the ?ritin!
to?ard a ,sychobio!ra,hical si!nified, or even to?ard a !eneral ,sycholo!ical structure that
could ri!htly be se,arated from the si!nifier) 5&386
<n one level this means, @uite sim,ly, that ?e are to re!ard the ,sychobio!ra,hical as but one
form of ?ritin! or si!nification amon!st others, for ?hen ?e read bio!ra,hy or autobio!ra,hy ?e
are readin!, as every?here ?e must, nothin! other than ?ritin!) And for all its banality, this is a
necessary ,oint, in that it ,rovides the most direct route of return for the author as a bio!ra,hical
fi!ure in criticism) The ?riter0s 5auto6bio!ra,hy is ?ritin!, and there is therefore no reason to
either valorise its si!nificance in the act of inter,retation, or to outla? its de,loyment on the
!rounds that it is someho? an im,ro,er form of te;tuality) Thus ?e can re:mobilise the
autobio!ra,hical ?ithout la,sin! once more into ,ositivist or !eneticist assum,tions) Eet Derrida
?ants to take this further) 'n its most infamous hour, the te;t declares$
There is nothin! outside the te;t Ithere is no outside:te;tG il n0y a ,as de hors:te;teJ) And that is
neither because Dean:Dac@ues0 life or the e;istence of %amma or ThLrQse themselves, is not of
,rime interest to us, nor because ?e have access to their so:called 0real0 e;istence only in the te;t
and ?e have neither any means of alterin! this, nor any ri!ht to ne!lect this limitation) All reasons
of this ty,e ?ould already be sufficient, to be sure, but there are more
radical reasons) -hat ?e have tried to sho? by follo?in! the !uidin! line of the 0dan!erous
su,,lement0 is that in ?hat one calls the real life of these e;istences 0of flesh and bone0, beyond
and behind ?hat one believes can be circumscribed as Rousseau0s te;t, there has never been
anythin! but ?ritin!G there have never been anythin! but su,,lements, substitutional
si!nifications ?hich could only come forth in a chain of differential references, the 0real0
su,ervenin!, and bein! added only ?hile takin! on meanin! from a trace and from an invocation
of the su,,lement, etc) And thus to infinity, for ?e have read, in the te;t, that the absolute
,resent, >ature, that ?hich ?ords like 0real mother0 name, have al?ays already esca,ed, have
never e;istedG that ?hat o,ens meanin! and lan!ua!e is ?ritin! as the disa,,earance of natural
,resence) 5&3(P86
Derrida never @uite says so, but he irresistibly im,lies it$ life itself, in its materiality, even as it ?as
lived, is ?ritin!) Subse@uently, Derrida has on several occasions !one out of his ?ay to correct
the readin! of this statement, to refuse the idea that 0there is nothin! beyond lan!ua!e ) ) ) and
other stu,idities of that sort0) && Eet unjust as this idealist re,resentation is, it does not take ,lace
on the basis of nothin!, for Derrida is at his most ambi!uous here, and all the im,ortant @uestions
are left in sus,ension)
-hat are these 0more radical reasons07 Certainly they !o beyond the common,lace assertion that
the Confessions is a ?ritten te;t, and that there is no @uestion of sustainin! %amma and ThLrQse
as natural, em,irical ,resences in so far as they are biolo!ically deceased and a,,ear to us only
as traces in Rousseau0s te;t)O&* But ?here mi!ht ?e !o beyond this7 'n declarin! that there is
nothin! behind Rousseau0s te;t are ?e sayin! that %amma and ThLrQse never e;isted e;ce,t as
te;tual fi!ures even ?hen they ?ere alive7 That for Rousseau they ?ere su,,lements, and never
,resences, never more than te;tual fi!ures even as he ?alked in their midst7 And, most
im,ortant of all, is this to be taken as ,eculiar to Rousseau, or as a ,rinci,le of readin! and
?ritin! in !eneral7 The te;t ,rovides no elucidation here, even as it directly confronts its o?n
methodolo!ical status) <nce more, also, the unans?ered @uestion bears u,on Rousseau0s role
as an instance of lo!ocentrism)
Thou!h it is not at all clear ?hat Derrida means by this ,assa!e, ?hat it does in the
=rammatolo!y is @uite a,,arent) <nce a!ain it allo?s the te;t to thorou!hly utilise resources
?hose validity it dis,utes) -e may ,ursue the most !enerous ,sychobio!ra,hical thesis ,rovided
?e bear in mind that the ,sychoblo!ra,hical si!nified has never e;isted, just as ?e may have
dis,ro,ortionate recourse to the te;ts of Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau so lon! as it is recalled that
there is 0no te;t ?hose author and subject is Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau0) That ?e summon
Rousseau0s auto:eroticism, his relationshi, ?ith ThLrQse, %amma, his discomfiture ?ith the
s,oken ?ord does not return us to the ,rece,ts of man:and:the:?ork criticism, for ?e are only
dealin! ?ith ?ritin!, and here only ?ith a certain collocation of te;ts ?hich arbitrarily bear the
name Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, and ?hose very ,lace in the readin! is determined solely by their
meta,hysical and e,istemic a,,urtenance) Eet in 0That Dan!erous Su,,lement0, so far from
,resentin! that in Rousseau ?hich is common to the a!e and to the e,isteme, Derrida is dra?in!
u,on a hi!hly idiosyncratic net?ork of circumstances in ?hich an essay on the ori!in of
lan!ua!es, a ,olitical ,hiloso,hy of uncorru,ted ori!ins, an obsessive autoeroticism and a
,sycho,atholo!y of mother:substitution all manifestly coincide ?ith an e;altation of natural
,resence and a denunciation of su,,lementarity as ne!ativity, evil, e;teriority)
The fortuities of this situation are not the stuff and substance of e,istemic e;em,larity, yet they
have been ,roffered as such) 'n accordance ?ith the classic deconstructive tro,e ?e could say
that a lacuna has o,ened u, bet?een statement and !esture here) The 0'ntroduction to the Oa!e
of Rousseau0O has told us that Rousseau is sim,ly an e;am,le of the lo!ocentric ensemble) 0That
Dan!erous Su,,lement0 has sho?n us that ?hat the author of the ssay on the <ri!in of
.an!ua!es e;em,lifies most ,erfectly is the contorted ,sycho,atholo!y Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau)
The ne;t move ?hich the =rammatolo!y makes is still more unlikely)
A 9istory <f Silence
But, first of all, is there a history of silence7
Dac@ues Derrida &1
The succeedin! cha,ter of the =rammatolo!y is entitled 0=enesis and Structure of the ssay on
the <ri!in of .an!ua!es0) 0=enesis0 ?ill be a ,eculiar ?ord in the =rammatolo!y since the ?ei!ht
of its thesis is directed to?ard ,roblematisin! the e;istence of anythin! like !enesis, ?hether it be
that of lan!ua!e, society, humanity) But the !enesis Derrida has here in mind is e;tremely narro?
and local) 9is concern is ?ith the ,recise date of the com,osition of the ssay,&2 and he
analyses this @uestion over the course of a lon! subsection entitled 0The #lace of the ssay0) 'n
the absence of any absolutely authoritative e;ternal evidence as to the time of its com,osition,
Rousseau scholars have been divided as to ?hether the ssay ?as ?ritten before or after the
second Discourse 5Discourse on 'ne@uality6) &3 S,eculation ran!es over a ,eriod of fifteen or so
years, the mid:&/2+s bein! the earliest ,ossible time, &/4& the latest) The second Discourse
5&/326 occu,ies such ,rominence in this debate because it is considered the first of the !reat
Rousseauian ?orks, and thus forms the o,enin! of the ,rimary canon) Scholars have lar!ely
consented in the vie? that the ssay is not the e@ual of these !reat discourses, that a certain
?ant of structure and immaturity of ,hiloso,hical reasonin! are incom,atible ?ith the later ?ork)
Corres,ondin!ly, the themes of the later ?orks have been discovered in inchoate and fled!lin!
form in the ssay) This ,osition has also the added advanta!e of e;,lainin! ?hy the te;t ?as
never ,ublished durin! Rousseau0s lifetime) #ublication ?as ?ithheld, it is assumed, because the
author realised that this ?ork ?ould not do justice to the !reat ,hiloso,hical ,roject he ?as about
to undertake)&4
Derrida contests this ,osition vi!orously, and in an ar!ument that throu!hout res,ects all the
,rotocols of classical te;tual scholarshi,) -ith an attentiveness and ri!our all his o?n, he ar!ues
that in terms of e;ternal evidence, there is no ,ro!ression in ,hiloso,hic thematics bet?een the
ssay and the second Discourse, if anythin! the reverse) There is thus no @uestion of the ssay
,redatin! the second Discourse on these counts) -ith re!ard to the e;ternal @uestion, Derrida
claims that the debate ?as settled in favour of the ,osteriority of the ssay as lon! a!o as &8&1,
and @uotes a Rousseau scholar at !reat len!th to this effect)O&/ The intricacies of Derrida0s
ar!ument are of no es,ecial interest here) The more com,ellin! @uestion is ?hy the
=rammatolo!y should concern itself ?ith this issue at all) -hat motivates Derrida to de,art from
the theme of the su,,lement for a full and valuable t?enty:five ,a!es immediately after havin!
introduced it in the most s,ellbindin! fashion7 And to do so in the interest of ,ursuin! the most
auteurist and ,ositivistic of e;ercises7 -hat could be more irrelevant to a broad:based
interte;tuality than the @uestion of ?hether the ssay ?as ?ritten si; years before the second
Discourse or si; years after7
Derrida0s commentators are silent on this issue) As ?ell they mi!ht be, for not only does this
section command ,recious little interest for anyone ?ho is not a Rousseau scholar, but it ?ould
a,,ear, also, to be thorou!hly counterintuitive) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak is rare, ,erha,s alone,
in mentionin! 0The #lace of the ssay0, and she does so only in the offices of a translator0s
introduction) For her, it 0is en!rossin! to ?atch the bold ar!ument o,eratin! in the service of a
conventional debate0, an o,,ortunity to savour the 0taste of a rather s,ecial early Derrida0, and the
section is to be read as a ,iece of 0rather endearin! conservatism0) &(
9o?ever, true as this may be, the im,lication is that ?e are to re!ard the relationshi, of 0The
#lace of the ssay0 to the rest of the =rammatolo!y as ,urely contin!ent) Eet one thin! ?e
@uickly learn from readin! Derrida is that nothin! is a sim,le di!ression, undertaken for no
a,,arent reason) Rather such moments, like faultlines in the te;t, ?ill a,,ear mar!inal and
e;trinsic, but to ri!orous investi!ation in fact reveal an economy, or strate!ic ?a!er, vital to the
entire system) 't is u,on such moments, a footnote, a harmless entr0acte, a casual meta,hor, a
seemin!ly directionless cha,ter, that deconstructive readin! ?ill be!in its ?ork of unsettlin! the
structures and ,resu,,ositions of the te;t) -hy then does Derrida ?ant us to a!ree that the
ssay ,ostdates the second Discourse7 S,ivak also says$ 0' do not believe that Derrida ever
a!ain devotes himself to this sort of te;tual scholarshi,)0&8 9o?ever, ?hen ?e consider that
Derrida undertakes a very similar mission in 0#lato0s #harmacy0, the necessities ?hich dictate
0The #lace of the ssay0 be!in to emer!e)*+
By a coincidence, ,erha,s uncanny, #lato0s #haedrus has also been rele!ated by tradition to a
,lace amon! the ?orks of its author0s immaturity)*& The use of myth to illustrate the ,roblem of
?ritin! 5an e;,lanatory tactic !enerally censured by #lato6, and ill:construction in the e;chan!es
bet?een #haedrus and Socrates, have led scholars to su,,ose that it ?as #lato0s first dialo!ue)
'n the early t?entieth century this vie? ,ersisted but took a curious turn as scholars no? be!an to
assert that it ?as #lato0s last ?ork, the same defects no? e;,licable in terms of declinin! rather
than nascent critical ,o?ers) 9ere a!ain Derrida ,lays the dutiful advocate$ 0-e are s,eakin! of
the #haedrus that ?as obli!ed to ?ait almost t?enty:five centuries before anyone !ave u, the
idea that it ?as a badly com,osed dialo!ue ) ) ) -e are no lon!er at that ,oint)0** To sufficiently
sensitive e;,iscation, Derrida ar!ues, the #haedrus ?ill surrender all the lo!ical ri!our of the
!reat #latonic dialo!ues) 't is only really necessary to read this te;t to see that, in its denunciation
of ?ritin!, it is not only com,atible ?ith the #latonic system in !eneral, but actively and ur!ently
necessitated by that system) 0#lato0s #harmacy0 thus !ives over its first t?enty ,a!es to defendin!
the #haedrus a!ainst the tradition)
<f course this ?ill seem a little ,uFFlin!, since from a ,rima facie ,oint of vie?, the tradition is
very much in a!reement ?ith ?hat ?e mi!ht e;,ect deconstruction to avouch here) #latonic
scholars themselves, far from u,holdin! #lato0s denunciation of ?ritin! have found it some?hat
inconsistent, and in e;,licit contradiction ?ith #lato0s o?n ,ractices as a ?riter) 'ndeed, ?e mi!ht
say, that in certain res,ects, the critical basis on ?hich deconstruction mi!ht take ,lace here has
been ,re,ared lon! in advance) Eet ?hat ,resents itself here as the deconstruction of
lo!ocentrism here, is in fact res,ondin! to the far more onerous ,ressures of constructin! that
tradition)
<ver and above the necessities of undoin! the te;t, and as their indis,ensable condition, the
#haedrus must be seen to belon! fully to the !reat #latonic meta,hysics, for ?ithin the
deconstructive narrative this te;tAof ?hich only four ,a!es deal ne!atively ?ith the @uestion of
?ritin!Aforms the ori!in of lo!ocentrism) And the stacks are laid hi!h a!ainst Derrida here, since
it is not just that the #haedrus as a ?hole is thou!ht to belon! to a ,rodi!al immaturity, but it is
thou!ht to do so ,rimarily on account of the very section ?hich introduces the myth of Threuth to
illustrate the ar!ument that ?ritin!, as an artificial mnemic device, ?ould subvert the livin!
,resence of natural memory) *1 Furthermore, additional su,,ort for the condemnation of ?ritin!
only comes from a Seventh .etter ?hose authenticity is ?idely contested)*2 Derrida must insist
u,on the 0ri!orous, sure, and subtle form0*3 of the #haedrus, he must ar!ue ?ith a su,remely
,atient vi!our, that the #haedrus is absolutely essential and a;ial to the ,rimary #latonic canon,
that the very system of #latonic idealism relates eo i,so to the the re,ression of ?ritin!, for it is
only from this ,oint that the seemin!ly lateral @uestion of s,eechK?ritin! can be ?edded to the
vast tradition of -estern meta,hysics) 't is only from here that Derrida can say that the
meta,hysics of ,resence came into its bein! ?ith the re,ression of ?ritin!, only from here that his
te;t can be!in to use these terms interchan!eably ?ithin its history of -estern thou!ht)
.ike?ise, in the case of Rousseau0s te;t) 9avin! allotted to a short, little read and ,osthumously
,ublished tract the onus of re,resentin! an entire a!e of meta,hysics bet?een Descartes and
9e!el, the redoubtable ,roblems of e;em,larity*4 that this raises ?ould be still further
com,ounded ifAfollo?in! traditionA?e ?ere to see in the ssay a ?ork not even itself ,ro,erly
Rousseauian)*/ This ?ould not have ,resented such ,roblems to Derrida had he merely ?ished
to discuss the ssay on its o?n terms, as thou!h it could have come from any?here) But in order
to lend the theme of su,,lementarity its full breadth the =rammatolo!y has been obli!ed to trace
it across Rousseau0s entire cor,us, and to read it in the dee,est reserves of his e;,erience,
thereby evolvin! a Rousseauism from ?hich the ssay is thenceforth in ,rinci,le ine;tricable)
Furthermore, ?ithin the com,le; economy of the =rammatolo!y, su,,lementarity must be traced
throu!h the Confessions if it is to be a determinant ,sychic forceG as, too, the ssay must
interte;tualise from a ,osition of ,arity ?ith the !reat discourses, for it is in this hour that the
@uestion of ?ritin! as su,,lementarity conjoins itself to the discourses on nature, culture, ,oliticsG
and indeed havin! established the ,osteriority of the ssay to the second Discourse,
!rammatolo!y ?ill s,are no effort in readin! the @uestion of ?ritin! as tacitly im,lied in the entire
Rousseauian ,hiloso,hy) *(
There is then a very definite sense in ?hich deconstruction is in com,licity ?ith the te;ts it
deconstructs) As a !eneral ,rinci,le, ,re,aratory labours of construction must accom,any any
deconstructive act, for the readin! must ,ro,ose a model of order even if only in the interests of
finally unsettlin! that orderG and in this sense Derrida0s ?ork ac@uires a rare analo!ue in its
industrial counter,art, for ?hich a certain ?ork of consolidation is sometimes necessary if a
buildin! is to colla,se accordin! to ,re:established ,atterns) Eet, thou!h this initial ,hase of
construction is common to all the deconstructive readin!s, its ur!ency is some?hat !reater in the
cases of the #haedrus and the ssay than else?here) That Derrida ?ill e;ert such efforts of
s,onsorshi, on their behalf is ,rimarily due to the ,eculiar fra!ility of the history he recounts) For
this reason, too, he has no ans?ers to the @uestion of Rousseau0s e;em,larity)
'f ?e reconstitute the history of lo!ocentrism, ?e ?ill see thatAin its e;em,lary momentsAit
lea,s directly from anti@uity to Rousseau0s ssay on the <ri!in of .an!ua!es) And it is not in the
interests of brevity or momentum that Derrida should move so e;,editiously bet?een the
#haedrus and the Rousseauist dream of a ,ure, ori!inary voice) 0'f the history of meta,hysics is
the history of a determination of bein! as ,resence, if its adventure mer!es ?ith that of
lo!ocentrism, and if it is ,roduced ?holly as the reduction of the trace, Rousseau0s ?ork seems to
me to occu,y, bet?een #lato0s #haedrus and 9e!el0s ncyclo,aedia, a sin!ular ,osition)0 58/6
Eet the sin!ularity of Rousseau0s ,osition is determined by the sin!ular silence of the Classical
A!e on the ,riority of s,eech, re,ression of ?ritin!$ 0-ithin this a!e of meta,hysics, bet?een
Descartes and 9e!el, Rousseau is undoubtedly the only one or the first one to make a theme or
system of the reduction of ?ritin!0, the te;t says, but feels com,elled to add that this reduction
?as 0,rofoundly im,lied by the entire a!e0) 58(6 9o?ever, Derrida does not sho? ho? the
reduction of ?ritin! ?as ,rofoundly im,lied by Descartes, nor any other of the ,hiloso,hers of the
Classical era) 'ndeed, !rammatolo!y is here forced into a ,osition e;actly the reverse of
Foucault0s analysis of the Classical e,isteme) -hilst The <rder of Thin!s devotes its lon!est,
most evidenced and ,ersuasive analyses to demonstratin! the Classical ,re:occu,ation ?ith the
system of si!ns, <f =rammatolo!y must enforce the re,ression of the si!n durin! this e,och, and
on the basis of very little evidence or ar!umentation)
Furthermore, the 0a!e of meta,hysics0 that Derrida demarcates becomes all the less ,ro,itious to
the lo!ocentric thesis in that those areas in ?hich the @uestion of ?ritin! ?as raisedA!eneral
!rammar, the .eibniFian ,roject of the characteris universalisAe;erted ener!ies more
accommodatin! to a nascent !rammatolo!y than meta,hysical ,honocentrism) 'ndeed, in this era
?e ?ould antici,ate that !rammatolo!y, as the science of ?ritin!, ?ould do everythin! to dra?
forth the efflorescence of interest in the si!n system, the mathematicisation of kno?led!e, in the
Chinese ideo!ram, the bur!eonin! disci,lines of ,asi!ra,hy and so forth, rather than ,ressin! the
dour and ne!ative thesis that ?e behold here only the illusion of ?ritin!0s liberation, that at the
most fundamental level ?ritin! ?as still shackled, lateralised, debased) Eet Derrida is contracted
to this ,osition, sinceAas the Classical era is itself the !reat e,och of meta,hysicsAit is
essential that the lo!ocentric arran!ement ?ill be seen to hold undivided s?ay durin! this ,eriod)
>ot sur,risin!ly, Derrida is forced into defensive, almost rear!uard actions here) %ost markedly in
the case of .eibniF$
'n s,ite of all the differences that se,arate the ,rojects of universal lan!ua!e or ?ritin! at this
time 5notably ?ith res,ect to history and lan!ua!e6, the conce,t of the sim,le absolute is al?ays
necessarily and indis,ensably involved) 't ?ould be easy to sho? that it al?ays leads to an
infinitist theolo!y and to the lo!os or the infinite understandin! of =od) That is ?hy, a,,earances
to the contrary, and in s,ite of all the seduction that it can le!itimately e;ercise on our e,och, the
.eibniFian ,roject of a universal characteristic that is not essentially ,honetic does not interru,t
lo!ocentrism in any ?ay) <n the contrary, universal lo!ic confirms lo!ocentrism, is ,roduced
?ithin it and ?ith its hel,, e;actly like the 9e!elian criti@ue to ?hich it ?ill be subjected) '
em,hasise the com,licity of these t?o contradictory movements ) ) ) 5/(P86
#uttin! to one side the @uestion of ?hether the sim,le absolute or characteristic does lead so
easily to infinitist theolo!y, *8 as ?ell as the sus,icion of circularity in his ar!ument here 5that
universal lo!ic is ,roduced ?ithin lo!ocentrism is ,recisely ?hat is in @uestion6, it is clear that the
terms of the !rammatolo!ical thesis have been deftly shifted at this ,oint) The ,rinci,al contention
of the =rammatolo!y has been that the re,ression of ?ritin! is the universally ,rior condition of
the lo!ocentric e,isteme, 0the historical ori!in and structural ,ossibility of ,hiloso,hy as of
science, the condition of the e,isteme0) 526 >o?, ho?ever, Derrida is sayin! that the .eibniFian
si!n system is lo!ocentric even thou!h it does not ,rivile!e the ,honQ) ven if ?e accede to
everythin! Derrida says about the connection bet?een the sim,le absolute and infinitist theolo!y,
nothin! is redeemed in this res,ectG if anythin! the @uestions raised take on a still more ?orryin!
as,ect) 9o? is it that a universal lan!ua!e ?hich ,rivile!es neither s,eech nor ?ritin!, and ?hich
is ,ro,osed in the form an arche:?ritin! lo!ically ,rior to both, should, indeed could be
lo!ocentric ?ithout res,ectin! the sole and sufficient condition of that e,isteme7 Are ?e to acce,t
a lo!ocentrism ?hich is not ,honocentric7 9o?, in !rammatolo!ical terms, is that ,ossible7 <f
=rammatolo!y has much to clarify at this ,oint, but the te;t moves @uickly a?ay from the
.eibniFian @uestion, as also from the issue of the ?ides,read classical research into Chinese
?ritin!, a ,roject ?hich is dismissed as 0a sort of uro,ean hallucination0) 5(+6
The ,roblems that the Classical era ,resent to !rammatolo!y, then, are immense, for not only are
overtly lo!ocentric te;ts cons,icuous in their absence, but Derrida has also to contend ?ith a
movement in thou!ht ?hich a,,ears, for all the ?orld, to interru,t or breach the !reat e,och of
lo!ocentrism) <f course it mi!ht be said that such a silence consolidates the deconstructive
insistence on the ,resu,,ositional inherence of lo!ocentrism in -estern discourse, that thou!h
so much in this e,och ?ould su!!est the contrary, these forces merely re!ister su,erficial or
illusory dis,lacements, and that the re,ression of ?ritin! continued to o,erate at the dee,est
level) And this is not @uite as eristic a ,oint as it mi!ht seem) The a!ency of re,ression, as ?e
kno?, is at its stron!est ?hen it o,erates una?ares) But since lo!ocentrism can, and does
surface every no? and then, ?e mi!ht e;,ect some historical account of ?hy it enters discourse
at a manifest level at some times and does not at others) %oreover, even if ?e allo? the verity of
each and every !rammatolo!ical ,ro,osition, the absence of e;,licitly lo!ocentric te;ts ?ill still
,resent Derrida ?ith enormous e;,ository difficulties in that there are ,recious fe? ,oints at
?hich deconstruction can seiFe u,on lo!ocentricity and contest its assum,tions) That
deconstruction must take ,lace u,on a construct is obvious, and to o,,ose a tacit and
sedimented ne;us of ,honocentric assum,tions across an e,isteme as old as thou!ht itself ?ould
be a task so ,roblematic as to be all but inconceivable) As a result, Derrida is obli!ed to e;alt
those brief and historically isolated moments of lo!ocentric clarity in ?hich the !roundin!
assum,tions of t?o:and:a:half millennia surface as a theory of the ,rimacy of s,eech over
?ritin!) 'ndeed, the tendency of deconstruction to ?ork so assiduously on the mar!insA?ith four
,a!es of the #haedrus, a hybrid te;t like the ssay, Freud0s tiny 0>ote on the %ystic -ritin! #ad0,
a footnote to Bein! and Time, ?ith one citation from De 'nter,retatione, ?ith the im,licit, the
scarcely said, the la,sus scribendi, and so forthAall this may ?ell be lar!ely attributable to the
fact that the @uestion of s,eech0s ascendancy over ?ritin! had never entered the ,hiloso,hical
mainframe) From Rousseau on?ard, it is true, ,honocentrism becomes a little more e;,licit in the
,hiloso,hical te;t, and ?e o?e it to Dac@ues Derrida that ?e no? kno? e;actly ?here to look in
9e!el, 9usserl, Saussure and 9eide!!er to find its e;,ress formulations) Eet even ?ith these
thinkers ,honocentrism does not force a dominant theme at any obvious level$ not a te;t, nor a
cha,ter of a te;t is !iven over to the subject in any direct manner) Thus to the @uestions Derrida
asksA0-hy accord an 00e;em,lary00 value to the Oa!e of RousseauO7 -hat ,rivile!ed ,lace does
Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau occu,y in the entire history of lo!ocentrism70 58/6A?e mi!ht re,ly that
?ithout Rousseau there ?ould be neither a sin!le e;am,le of lo!ocentrism bet?een #lato and
9e!el, nor a lo!ocentric te;t of any len!th in the history of lo!ocentrism) 'ndeed, ?e mi!ht ?onder
if it is correct even to talk of ,rivile!e in this conte;t) -hen a te;t is sui !eneris, there is no
valorisation, only tautolo!y involved in allottin! it a uni@ue class) -hat ?e can say, thou!h, is that
?ithout the ssay, the history of lo!ocentrism ?ould be all but inaudible) -hether it is ,ossible to
?rite a history of silenceA?hich ?ould also be a silent historyAis e;tremely doubtful) Certainly it
?ould not have the density im,osed u,on it by <f =rammatolo!y)
The =rammatolo!y catches Derrida in a ,osition of unaccustomed vulnerability, since rather than
interro!atin! the systems of others, ?e find him constructin! a certain theoretical structure and
history of his o?n, as he is obli!ed to do if the more s,ecific analyses of lo!ocentrism are to have
anythin! more than a re!ional si!nificance) All the other ?orks of this ,eriod constantly
,resu,,ose the necessity of the lo!ocentric e,isteme, but no?here do they for?ard any
substantial account of its constitution and history) verythin! ,roceeds as thou!h this history
?ere !iven, and the deconstructor brin!in! a decisive moment in its articulation into the shar,est
focus) The =rammatolo!y therefore functions very much as the !round?ork since it stands as
reference for the e,isteme to ?hich these essays have constant recourse) Thus the e,isteme
ac@uires an indis,ensability in reconstruction ?hich it does not have in Foucault0s thou!ht, since
Foucault could abandon the conce,t as an e;,lanatory device ?hilst continuin! his ,roject of
seekin! out the rules of formation for discourse)
For Derrida, ho?ever, lo!ocentrism, as the ,rivile!in! of s,eech, must be the first condition of
t?o:and:a:half thousand years of meta,hysical thou!ht if the thou!ht of ?ritin! as diffLrance is to
have the ,o?er to force some sort of breach in the meta,hysical enclosure) Dust as diffLrance
must be 5conce,tually6 older than ontolo!ical difference, and 5from the revisionist ,oint of vie?6
youn!er than 9eide!!er, so too the ,rivile!in! of the ,hone must be older than ,resence for
diffLrance only ac@uires its counter:meta,hysical force in so far as it derives from and a!ainst a
conce,t of meta,hysics ?hich ori!inates not in ,resence but 5before and as the cause of
,resence6 in the ideal of full s,eech) And the difficulties facin! Derrida here are immense for
unlike the criti@ues of meta,hysics made by >ietFsche, by the lo!ical ,ositivists, or 9eide!!er
even, the Derridean deconstruction of meta,hysics does not ,roceed from an easily
communicable or com,rehensible characterisation of meta,hysics, his idea of meta,hysics as the
,rivile!in! of the ,honQ havin! no su,,ort in the movement a!ainst meta,hysics and very little
?ithin the thou!ht of meta,hysicians themselves) Furthermore, ?hat Derrida, for all his labours,
cannot establish is ?hy the o,,osition s,eechK?ritin! is anythin! more than one o,,osition
amon!st others, ?hy, that is, it should have inau!ural and all:institutive status ?ithin the history of
meta,hysics) 't is easy enou!h to follo? Derrida in seein! that the s,eechK?ritin! o,,osition is
related to the o,,osition ,resenceKabsence ?hich 9eide!!er re!arded as constitutive of all
meta,hysical thou!ht, but it is not clear ?hy it should do so as the condition of the meta,hysical
tradition rather than as its effect) And Derrida ?ould seem, a!ainst his interests, to confirm that
the ,honocentric @uestion is secondary or subordinate to that of ,resence, since in sho?in! that
s,eech is al?ays determined as full ,resence to itself, and is therefore meta,hysical, the idea of
,resence is from the outset assumed to be lo!ically ,rior to the idea of s,eech) 't is difficult to see
ho?, from this ,osition, Derrida can convincin!ly ar!ue for the lo!ical ,riority of s,eech over
,resence and the entire chain of deconstruction ?hich takes ,lace on the basis of 5and in
o,,osition to6 this su,,osed ,riority) At very most the constructive criti@ue mi!ht o,en u, a
certain undecidability on this @uestion, yet even in so doin!, the central claim that ,honocentrism
is the ,rimal condition of the e,istemeAand ?ritin! therefore its ,rimal re,ressionA?ould remain
unsatisfied) 1+
>aturally, that Derrida cannot ,roduce transcendental ar!uments for the ,riority of lo!ocentrism
should not deter or invalidate the !rammatolo!ical ,roject) But ?hat it does do is to ,lace the
burden of the demonstration on the role of lo!ocentrism ?ithin the historical develo,ment of
meta,hysics) -hich is to say, that the te;t must furnish e;am,les of the re,ression of ?ritin! if
deconstruction is to have any levera!e ?ithin the elusive tradition ?hich it o,,oses) But
e;am,les, as ?e have seen, are at a ,remium, and, needless to say, ?hen the number and
ran!e of instances of ?hat is held to be a universal ,henomenon are severely limited then the
,roblems of e;em,larity are redoubled) And ?hen the ?ei!ht of e;em,lifyin! an a!e falls so
heavily u,on one author, then it is @uestionable ?hether ?e are dealin! ?ith e;em,larity at all) 's
Rousseau an e;am,le7 Can one e;am,le re,resent an a!e7 #recisely because it is the key
issue of the =rammatolo!y, the @uestion of e;em,larity must be short:circuited ?henever it
arises, and most commonly and conveniently in the sha,e of denyin! that 0Dean:Dac@ues
Rousseau0 means anythin!) Doubtless the ,roblem of e;em,larity is one facet of the ,roblem of
the author) The need to instantiate ?ill e;ert si!nal stresses on any deauthorised history,
,articularly ?hen one or t?o authors ?ill serve to e;em,lify ?hat thousands cannot) 9o?ever, in
the =rammatolo!y, @uite a,art from this constitutin! a reason for acce,tin! the role of individual
authors in the history of discourse, it forces Derrida into the most a?k?ard of ,ositions ?hereby
his te;t must deny the author ,recisely because of the e;orbitant recourse it makes to Dean:
Dac@ues Rousseau as author, lo!ocentrist)
The claim that the author does not e;ist is uni@ue to the =rammatolo!y, and subse@uently
Derrida has made certain efforts to say the o,,osite on this @uestion)1& 'ndeed, ?ith this in mind,
?e mi!ht ?onder if the o,,osition to the author that arises here has anythin! more than a
strate!ic value) There is, ho?ever, one area, in ?hich Derridean deconstruction ?ill seem to
consistently confront the author$ that of intention) Thin!s here ?ill not be as clear cut as many
?ish to su,,ose, but the necessity of deconstructin! intention is to be found in virtually all
Derrida0s readin!s, not only as a ,rinci,le of method, but as their remainder, their identity, their
justification) Doublin! The Te;t$ 'ntention And 'ts <ther
The !ain:of:an;iety, for the stron! ,oet and the stron! reader, is the certain location of a ,lace,
even thou!h the ,lace be an absence, the ,lace:of:a:voice, for this settin! of a to,os makes a
,oem ,ossible ) ) ) -e mark the s,ot by ?ishin! to slay the father, there, at that crossin!, and
?e then kno? the s,ot because it becomes the ,lace ?here the voice of the dead father breaks
throu!h) The markin!, the ?ill:to:inscribe, is the ethos of ?ritin! that our most advanced
,hiloso,hers of rhetoric trace, but the kno?in! is itself a voicin!, a ,athos, and leads us back to
the theme of ,resence that, in a stron! ,oem, ,ersuades us ever afresh, even as the illusions of
a tired meta,hysics cannot)
9arold Bloom 1*
'n a certain ?ay ) ) ) ' am ?ithin Rousseau0s te;t)
Dac@ues Derrida11
Bet?een the ,ublication of -imsatt and Beardsley0s 0The 'ntentional Fallacy0 5&8246 and Steven
Bna,, and -alter Benn %ichaels0 0A!ainst Theory0 5&8(*6, literary theory has been entirely
divided on the @uestion as to ?hat relevance authorial intention has to the inter,retation of the
literary te;t)12 Curiously enou!h, thou!h they take u, diametrically o,,osed ,ositions on
intentionality, the t?o articles are more strikin! for their similarities) Beyond the fact that they are
co:authoredAa consideration ?hich raises certain intri!uin! @uestions as to ?hose intentions are
?hose and as to ho? a cor,orate intention can be distributedA0The 'ntentional Fallacy0 and
0A!ainst Theory0 both sou!ht to ,ut an end once and for all to critical @uibbles about intention and
did so in the name of the >e?$ in the former, that of the 0>e?0 CriticismG in the latter, that of a
0>e?0 #ra!matism)
-imsatt and Beardsley, as is ?ell kno?n, thou!ht to do a?ay ?ith tiresome s,eculation about
?hat such and such a ,oet meant by such and such a ,oem on the !rounds that ?hat the ,oet
meant is both unkno?able and, in any case, irrelevant) The ,oem only means on the level of the
,oem and once it is ?ritten its author0s intent in ?ritin! it is to be discounted entirely) Bna,, and
%ichaels, on the other hand, seek to achieve an e@ually s,ectacular sim,lification of critical
,ractice) For them, there is no difference ?hatsoever bet?een meanin! and intention) The te;t
means e;actly ?hat its author meant it to mean) There is therefore no ,ur,ose ?hatsoever in
even tryin! to establish intention as a condition of communicable meanin!) To attem,t, as )D)
9irsch has done, to !round meanin! in intention is tautolo!ical$ intention is meanin!, meanin! is
intention) 'ntentionless meanin! is thus for Bna,, and %ichaels as fallacious as meanin!ful
intention ?as for -imsatt and Beardsley) Stran!e as it mi!ht seem then, 0A!ainst Theory0 finds
itself in full a!reement ?ith 0The 'ntentional Fallacy0 on at least one issue) Both articles maintain
that it is fruitless to en@uire into an author0s intention, that there is never any need to ste, outside
the te;t in search of an author$ on the ,ra!matist case, because ?hat the author meant is
everythin! the te;t meansG for the >e? Critics, because ?hat the author means cannot find its
?ay back into his or her te;t) The critical field is thus sim,lified in one of t?o antithetical modes$
either the te;t is fully !overned by an immanent authorial intention, or by the immanent meanin!s
that absent intention uncovers)
This critical stalemate has been ,layed out in the thirty:si; years that intervened bet?een the t?o
articles) <n the one hand, >e? Critical, Structuralist, ,oststructuralist and ,ractical schools of
criticism have !enerally assumed that authorial intent is ruled out of court from the start, leavin!
the critic free to ,ursue intrinsic readin!s ?ithout any re!ard for ?hat the author mi!ht have
meant to say) <n the other hand, ,henomenolo!ically influenced critics such as )D) 9irsch have
elevated authorial intention to the hi!hest inter,retive norm, findin! certain su,,ort in the ?ork of
s,eech act theoreticians such as D).) Austin, Dohn Searle and 9)#) =rice ?ho have all variously
asserted that the s,eaker0s intentions are a necessary condition of any meanin!ful
communicative act) 13 Bet?een these t?o ,ositions there is little or no com,romise, and the
@uestion of intention has rarely been distributed in terms of a middle !round) At its sim,lest,
intention is deemed either necessary or unnecessary, and absolutely so in both cases)
Derrida0s rece,tion on the issue of intention has tended to reflect this divide) Both those critics
?ho ?ould u,hold intention and those ?ho ?ould do a?ay ?ith it alto!ether have assumed that
his ?ork denies the cate!ory of intention outri!ht, and often this assum,tion has been made in
overtly ,olemical interests) For deconstructive anti:intentionalists, this construal of Derrida0s ?ork
has often served as an e;,edient justification for abandonin! inter,retive norms in the ,ursuit of
abyssal or free,layin! criticism, ?hilst for ,ro,onents of a more orthodo; and auteurist criticism, it
has constituted one more reason to dismiss deconstruction as a kind of rootless te;tual nihilism)
-ithin the contem,orary critical forum, these ,ositions have, in their conflict, a certain reci,rocity,
the one !ainin! stren!th from the other, ?hilst the actual, literal and reiterated statements Derrida
has made about authorial intention have been ne!lected) 'ndeed, ?hen the o,,ortunity for debate
clearly arose in the famous e;chan!e bet?een Derrida and Dohn Searle in &8//, it misfired
lar!ely because of the intem,erately ,olemical tone of Derrida0s res,onse to Searle0s criticisms,
but also as a conse@uence of the An!lo:American tendency to take u, absolutist ,ositions on
intention) 'n an ener!etic ,a,er, Searle claimed that from Derrida0s te;t ?e must infer that
intentionality is 0entirely absent from ?ritten communication0) 14 9o?ever, if, as Derrida ,rom,ts
us, ?e return to 0Si!nature, vent, Conte;t0, ?e find somethin! @uite different$
Rather than o,,ose citation or iteration to the non:iteration of an event, one ou!ht to construct a
differential ty,olo!y of forms of iter:ation, assumin! that such a ,roject is tenable and can result
in an e;haustive ,ro!ram ) ) ) 'n such a ty,olo!y, the cate!ory of intention ?ill not disa,,earG it
?ill have its ,lace, but from that ,lace it ?ill no lon!er be able to !overn the entire scene and
system of utterance)1/
As is abundantly clear, this is not at all the same thin! as dis,utin! the actuality or necessity of
intentionG rather, ?hat is ,ut in @uestion is the absolutely determinative he!emony of intention
over the communicative act) 'ntention is to be reco!nised, and res,ected, but on condition that
?e acce,t that its structures ?ill not be fully and ideally homo!eneous ?ith ?hat is said or ?ritten,
that it is not al?ays and every?here com,letely ade@uate to the communicative act) There ?ill be
times at ?hich crevices a,,ear in its hold, at ?hich lan!ua!e resists, or ?anders a?ay from the
s,eaker0s determinate meanin!) Conse@uently, thou!h the dominion of intention over the te;tual
,rocess is to be ri!orously refused, intention itself is not thereby cancelled but rather lod!ed
?ithin a broader si!nifyin! ,rocess) 'ntention is ?ithin si!nification, and as a ,o?erful and
necessary a!ency, but it does not command this s,ace in the manner of an or!anisin! telos, or
transcendental subjectivity) That Searle should so misread Derrida on this issue is ,erha,s
e;,licable in terms of the common mistake by ?hich the denial of absolute authority to a cate!ory
is confused ?ith that cate!ory0s total evacuation)
<f course another e;,lanation mi!ht be that Searle ?as not sufficiently familiar ?ith Derrida0s
?ork, for this medial ,osition on intention also coincides at the most a,,arent level ?ith the
,ractice of many of the deconstructive readin!s) 'n the =rammatolo!y, for instance, it is ?ritten$
Rousseau0s discourse lets itself be constrained by a com,le;ity ?hich al?ays has the form of the
su,,lement of or from the ori!in)
9is declared intention is not annulled by this but rather inscribed ?ithin a system ?hich it no
lon!er dominates) 5*216
'ndeed, even at the sta!e of the most ,reliminary ac@uaintance ?ith Derrida0s ?ork, it is clear that
intention is not o,,osed in the classic >e? Critical manner of assertin! that it is irrelevant and
unkno?able) Ruite the reverse$ if authorial intentions are to be deconstructed it must be acce,ted
that they are cardinally relevant and reco!nisable) The deconstructor must assume that he or she
has the clearest conce,tion of ?hat the author ?anted to say if the ?ork of deconstruction is to
!et under?ay) The model of intention culled from the te;t must be es,ecially confident and
shar,ly defined since the critic undertakes not only to reconstitute the intentional forces ?ithin the
te;t, but also to assi!n their ,ro,er limits) 't is only in terms of this reconstruction that the
deconstructor can be!in to se,arate that ?hich belon!s to authorial desi!n from that ?hich
eludes or unsettles its ,rescri,tions) Accordin!ly, deconstructive ,rocedure takes the form of
follo?in! the line of authorial intention u, to the ,oint at ?hich it encountered resistance ?ithin the
te;t itself$ from this ,osition the resistance can then be turned back a!ainst the author to sho?
that his te;t differs from itself, that ?hat he ?ished to say does not dominate ?hat the te;t says,
but is rather inscribed ?ithin 5or in more radical cases, en!ulfed by6 the lar!er si!nifyin! structure)
A!ain the =rammatolo!y states this ?ith ,erfect trans,arency$
the ?riter ?rites in a lan!ua!e and in a lo!ic ?hose ,ro,er system, la?s, and life his discourse by
definition cannot dominate absolutely) 9e uses them only by lettin! himself, after a fashion and
u, to a ,oint, be !overned by the system) And the readin! must al?ays aim at a certain
relationshi,, un,erceived by the ?riter, bet?een ?hat he commands and ?hat he does not
command of the ,atterns of the lan!ua!e that he uses) 5&3(6
The te;t is thereby stratified into declarative and descri,tive layers, 1( the former relatin! to ?hat
the author ?anted to say and the latter to that ?hich esca,es intention, a division ?hich mi!ht be
e;,ressed in other critical lan!ua!es, mutatis mutandis, as that bet?een the constative and
,erformative, the manifest and the latent, or in contem,orary ,arlance as the difference bet?een
the ,ro!rammatic intention 5?hat the author set out to say6 and the o,erative intention 5?hat his
te;t ends u, sayin!6)18 This stratification then in turn relates to the critical te;t itself ?hich is
necessarily divided into e;,licative and deconstructive ,hases, ?hereby authorial intention is first
reconstructed and then deconstructed via that ?hich has esca,ed its jurisdiction) 2+
Derrida thus recommends an interestin! com,romise bet?een intentionalist and anti:intentionalist
vie?s, since he neither identifies intention ?ith the entirety of te;tual effects 5as do many neo:
,ra!matists6, nor moves to the other e;treme of denyin! the necessity of intention as a factor in
!eneratin! and sha,in! ?hat is ?ritten) There is, therefore, no ?ay in ?hich Derrida0s ?ork can
be assimilated to anti:intentionalism as it is commonly conceived) 9o?ever, the Derridean
,osition ?ill seem anti:intentionalist in a second and less severe sense, since as a ,ractice of
readin! the critic sees it as his res,onsibility to turn the te;t a!ainst its author0s ,ro!rammatic
intentions, thus establishin! an o,,osition bet?een the reader and ?riter) Furthermore, as ,art of
the same movement, the author is estran!ed from a s,ecifically demarcated area of his te;t, for
?hilst the authority of the ?riter is acce,ted over the declarative as,ect of ?hat he ?rites, his
intentions hold no s?ay over the descri,tions he makes)
-e find ourselves therefore still, in a certain sense, ?ithin the movement a!ainst the author but
no lon!er in the mode of his death or disa,,earance) The author is to be o,,osed, but not
dismissed$ a some?hat dramatic scene of criticism is set in ?hich the critic sets out to sho? that
he or she is a better reader of the te;t than its author ever ?as) The critic ?ill attem,t not only to
out,ace the author alon! his or her ,ath?ays, but ?ill turn those very ,ath?ays back on
themselves, thereby discoverin! ?ithin the te;t all the reserves by ?hich its author is to be
o,,osed) Deconstruction ?ill evoke in order to revoke, acce,ts the author, but on condition that
the critic can ,roduce the te;t as a broader si!nifyin! structure ?ithin ?hich the author0s
determinin! ?ill is inscribed as one factor amon!st others) The critic thus establishes a constant
,riority over the author) >o lon!er is it a @uestion of the critic seekin! to ade@uate his intentions to
those of the author, but of the author findin! his intentions allo?ed only on condition that they ?ill
be secondary, no?here e@ual to the ?ritin! that ?rote itself throu!h and a!ainst him) That this is
a ,rofound reversal is undeniable) 9o? true it is of the deconstructive criti@ues in !eneral is,
ho?ever, another matter, as are the e;i!encies by ?hich this doublin! of the te;t is sometimes
motivated)
Derrida does not al?ays and every?here ri!idly adhere to this model, but the variations he makes
tend not to further circumscribe the role of intention but to accommodate a !reater acce,tance of
the validity and force of ?hat the author ?anted to say) 'n fact, in many instances Derrida is not
deconstructin! authorial intentions but the received inter,retation of a ?ork, and his itinerary is
here classically intentionalist in that the readin! ,ro,oses to restore the first intention a!ainst
reductive construals ,ut u,on it by the critical tradition) 2& 'n still other cases, ?hen addressin!
thinkers ?hose aims are lar!ely consistent ?ith the deconstructive enter,riseA>ietFsche, Freud,
.evinas, and most es,ecially 9eide!!erA?hat is for?arded is not at all the deconstruction of the
,rimary intent but its radicalisation, the interro!ation not so much of ?hat they ?anted to say as
?hat they failed to say) Deconstruction ?ill here take the te;t beyond itself, not in the interests of
overhaulin! the intent ?ith ?hich it ?as ?ritten, but in those of sho?in! ho? it sto,,ed short of
,ursuin! its most radical directions)2* 'n such ,laces, Derrida0s ?ork bes,eaks a distinctly
revisionary im,etus, o,,osin! 9eide!!er in those ,laces ?here 9eide!!er is insufficiently
9eide!!erian, takin! the further ste, on the countermeta,hysical ,ath?ays cleared by the
9eide!!erian ,roject)
T?o distinct attitudes to intention thus ,revail, de,endin! on ?hether Derrida is readin! one of
t?o broad cate!ories of te;t) <n the one hand, it can be said that the intention is not ade@uate to
the te;t, that the te;t says thin!s ?hich cannot be encom,assed by the author0s determinate
desi!ns 5the ,attern ?hich Derrida ado,ts ?ith meta,hysical ?riters such as Rousseau, 9e!el,
#lato6) <n the other hand, the inverse is avouched, in that it can be said that the te;t itself is not
ade@uate to its !overnin! intent 5the ,attern Derrida ado,ts ?ith counter:meta,hysical ?riters$
>ietFsche, 9eide!!er, .evinas6) The same basic ,remise that the author does not have full
control over his lan!ua!e is constant in both cases, but the latter a,,roach cannot be readily
reconciled to an anti:authorial ,osition, since it conforms to a classically revisionist ,aradi!m
?hereby the aims and conce,tual resources of a ,recursor are inherited, and carried for?ard in
accordance ?ith ne? conditions and im,eratives) To see anythin! of the death of the author in
Derrida0s ?ork here is to utterly misconstrue the nature of revisionism for ?hich a certain conflict
of means is necessary if thou!ht is to continue to?ard the same ends) 't is, for e;am,le, only
throu!h sho?in! ho? the 9eide!!erian intent ?as not fully effectuated by the ?ork of Bein! and
Time, 'dentity and Difference, that is to say, e;hausted by him, that deconstruction can inherit
from his le!acy, that the intentions of the 9eide!!erian ,roject can have a life beyond the death
of their author) Derrida himself makes this clear on numerous occasions)21
'n the former case, thou!h, deconstruction remains in strict o,,osition to authorial intention, and
once more it is in the =rammatolo!y that this o,,osition is at its most vi!orous) 'ndeed, the
readin! of Rousseau differs from Derrida0s ?ork on other meta,hysicians, if not in kind, then
certainly in the intensity ?ith ?hich the critic ,ursues the author into antinomy and a,oria) 't is
here, too, that Derrida found it necessary to incor,orate the theory of intention into the readin! at
the most e;,licit level, and to enforce the hiatus bet?een meanin!:to:say and sayin! on virtually
every ,a!e of the deconstructive readin!) Rousseau declares, but Rousseau describes, this
formulation dominates the te;t from 0The #lace of the ssay0 on?ards) And the infle;ible ur!ency
?ith ?hich the distinction is ,rosecuted is at all times a,,arent) very ,riority ?hich Rousseau
attem,ts to set u,, ?hether it be that of s,eech over ?ritin!, nature over culture, melody over
harmony, literal over fi!ural meanin!, the lan!ua!es of the South over those of the >orthAis
seen to be e;,ressly contradicted in his te;t)
Derrida em,loys numerous strate!ies to o,en u, this !a, bet?een !esture and statement) At one
time he ?ill look to the fi!urative and meta,horical in Rousseau0s te;t as to !uilty locutions ?hich
betray the re,ression of ?ritin!, at another to the modes and tenses of Rousseau0s verbs, at yet
another he ?ill ,roduce classically conse@uential ar!uments to sho? that Rousseau0s
,resu,,ositions lo!ically entail conclusions at odds ?ith the manifestly intended conclusion)
'ndeed the a,,aratus criticus Derrida brin!s to Rousseau is ?ide:ran!in!, concerted, even
a?esome in its relentless inva!ination) The te;t is cleaved throu!hout$
Articulation is the becomin!:?ritin! of lan!ua!e) Rousseau, ?ho ?ould like to say that this
becomin!:?ritin! comes u,on the ori!in une;,ectedly, takes it as his ,remise, and accordin! to it
describes in fact the ?ay in ?hich that becomin!:?ritin! encroaches u,on the ori!in, and arises
from the ori!in) The becomin!:?ritin! of lan!ua!e is the becomin!:lan!ua!e of lan!ua!e) 9e
declares ?hat he ?ishes to say, that is to say that articulation and ?ritin! are a ,ost:ori!inary
malady of lan!ua!eG he says or describes that ?hich he does not ?ish to say$ articulation and
therefore the s,ace of ?ritin! o,erates at the ori!in of lan!ua!e) 5**86
Rousseau ?ould ?ish the o,,osition bet?een southern and northern in order to ,lace a natural
frontier bet?een ty,es of lan!ua!es) 9o?ever, ?hat he describes forbids us to think it ) ) ) the
lan!ua!es of the north are on the ?hole lan!ua!es of need, the lan!ua!es of the south, to ?hich
Rousseau devotes ten times the s,ace in his descri,tion, are on the ?hole lan!ua!es of ,assion)
But this descri,tion does not ,revent Rousseau from declarin! that the one !rou, is born of
,assion, the other of need ) ) ) 5*&4P&/6
Rousseau0s entire te;t describes ori!in as the be!innin! of the end, as the inau!ural decadence)
Eet, in s,ite of that descri,tion, the te;t t?ists about in a sort of obli@ue effort to act as if
de!eneration ?ere not already ,rescribed in the !enesis, and as if evil su,ervened u,on a !ood
ori!in) 5&886
Rousseau sa? ?ithout seein!, said ?ithout sayin!) 22 For all his attem,ts to !ain control,
Rousseau ?itnesses his ssay ,lun!e into contradictions ?hich it cannot circumvent) And all of
this confirms ?hat Derrida has said) The te;t recoils from its author0s control$ the further intention
,ushes a!ainst its marches, the more it en!enders of its otherG contradictions and im,asses
emer!e ?hich ,roblematise and finally overhaul its thesis)
Eet often in the =rammatolo!y this division seems forced, arbitrary of occasion, insecure even)
Rather than allo? the readin! to ,ro!ress at its o?n ,ace, Derrida takes every conceivable
o,,ortunity to remind us that Rousseau is not sayin! ?hat he ?ants to say, that ?hat the
=rammatolo!y is sayin! is entirely irreducible to the intentional structure of the ssay) And this
reminder is obsessively italicised, ?ell beyond the ,oint at ?hich it has become stu,efyin!ly clear)
Furthermore, there are times at ?hich Derrida e;a!!erates the distinction, and not only by his
critical inventiveness in teasin! out hidden te;tual im,lications, but also via a some?hat ri!id and
constrainin! inter,retation of ?hat Rousseau actually means to say) That there mi!ht be a
s,eculative side to the ssay, that Rousseau mi!ht be askin! that ?e chance a journey to the
ori!in of lan!ua!es, and in the e;,ectation of discoverin! all sorts of thin!s on the ?ay, is never
taken into account) Rather the te;t must al?ays and every?here be inter,reted ?ith an
un!enerous, and intractable literalityG Rousseau0s failure to ,erceive the su,,lementary
thread?ork in his te;t must be absolute, never ,artial, and the =rammatolo!y never once
@uestions the status of its ascri,tion to Rousseau of such re!imented and unilinear desi!ns) >or
either does Derrida once venture ?hy it is so im,ortant, ?hy it is the issue of the readin! that
Rousseau is una?are of ?hat his te;t is sayin!) <f ?hat account is it that Rousseau did not kno?
that he ?as describin! the ,lay of a su,,lementarity ,rior and catastro,hic to all ori!ins7 -hy
insist u,on so ri!orously ,olicin! this border bet?een statement and !esture7 ven to the e;tent,
as ?e shall see, of endin! his te;t by contrastin! the oneirism of the lo!ocentrist ?ith the
?akefulness of the lo!ocentrist7 Somethin! of the ans?er to these @uestions lies not in the
distance that se,arates Derrida and Rousseau, but in the closeness of their conflict) -ere ?e to
cancel the !a, bet?een declaration and descri,tion in the manner of an e;,eriment, ?e ?ould
find not a different story, but e;actly the same story) At the same time, ho?ever, the roles of its
,rota!onists ?ould be si!nificantly altered) For, like the ,harmakon, Rousseauism is the cure for
its o?n ,oison) 23
Systems, 9e!el says, so? the seeds of their o?n destruction, and thou!h the ssay is tendered
as the lo!ocentrist te;t ,ar e;cellence, it is also the first serious and sustained meditation on
?ritin!) Rousseau0s te;t marks a considerable advance on the #haedrus not only because of its
len!th and focus, but also because of its radicality) -hilst #lato takes it some?hat for !ranted
that ?ritin! is derivative of s,eech, seekin! ,rimarily to demonstrate the moral and ethical
su,eriority of the s,oken ?ord, the ssay refuses the assum,tion of s,eech0s ,riority at least
?hilst it remains an assum,tion) That Rousseau does everythin! to confirm the lo!ocentric
,rejudice alters nothin! in this res,ect) The ,ossibility that it mi!ht be other?ise has been
admitted) And it is ?ithin this very ,ossibility, and accordin! to its s,ecific terms, modalities and
irresolutions that the entire !rammatolo!ical criti@ue unfurls)
't is not that Rousseau ar!ues badly in the ssayG had he done so his ?ork ?ould not have the
fecund !rammatolo!ical si!nificance that Derrida discovers) Rather, his attem,ts to unearth the
ori!in of lan!ua!es are driven from ,roblematic to ,roblematic, and if Rousseau0s te;t runs into
difficulties, it is because of its author0s refusal to su,,ress the !ro?in! menace of su,,lementarity
to the inte!rity of the ori!in) And it is ,recisely throu!h the ardour ?ith ?hich he ,ursues an
infinitely re!ressin! ori!in throu!h layers of su,,lementarity that Rousseau uncovers all the
resources ?ith ?hich the =rammatolo!y o,,oses the manifest drift of the ssay) Both Derrida
and Rousseau in@uire into the ori!in of lan!ua!es and uncover a voice ?ithout !rain, a ?ritin!
before the letter) Rousseau describes a voice ?ithin ?hose ?ar, and ?oof a system of ,re:vocal
articulation is already inscribed, Derrida describes ?hat Rousseau describes and calls this voice
?hich has never s,oken, this ?ritin! ?hich has never been ?ritten 0arche:?ritin!0) That Derrida0s
characterisation of this matinal lan!ua!e ,rejudices 0?ritin!0 and Rousseau0s 0s,eech0 is not so
!reat a difference as it mi!ht seem, if indeed it is a difference at all)
For Derrida is not to be construed, here or any?here else, as assertin! the ,rimacy of ?ritin! in
so far as ?ritin! is commonly conceived as ?ords u,on a ,a!e) -hat Derrida attem,ts to sho?,
rather, is that any detailed ar!ument for the ,riority of s,eech is com,elled to ,resu,,ose a
system of ,rior differences ?hich cannot be circumscribed by the cate!ory of s,eech or that of
?ritin! ?hilst the latter is conceived in o,,osition to the former) As is obvious, an ar!ument for
?ritin! conducted on those terms ?ould be destined to the same im,asses as that for the de jure
,riority of s,eech) 24 That ?hich is named 0arche:?ritin!0 could e@ually be called 0arche:s,eech0
for it ,recedes s,eech, ?ritin! and their o,,osition) And as Derrida insists, this arche:?ritin! is to
be found in Rousseau0s te;t itself) 't is another name for the lo!ic of the su,,lement, for
diffLrance$ 0Rousseau does not declare it, but ?e have seen that he describes it) From here on, '
shall constantly reconfirm that ?ritin! is the other name of this diffLrance0) 5*4(6
The situation re!ardin! intention is therefore double:ed!ed, for, lookin! in another li!ht, ?e could
say that Derrida is o,,osin! Rousseau at those ,oints ?here the deconstructor and lo!ocentrist
are at their closest, ?here the one is most in dan!er of bein! taken for the other, there ?here
Rousseau 0declares the absolute e;teriority of ?ritin! but describes the interiority of the ,rinci,le
of ?ritin! to lan!ua!e)0 51&16 This is ?hy the @uestion of intention takes on such si!nificance
?ithin the readin!, for since Derrida insists u,on inscribin! nothin! that is not to be found al?ays
already in Rousseau, then it is only throu!h doublin! Rousseau0s te;t into intention and its other
that the =rammatolo!y can carve out its o?n ,recarious self:identity) Should it have been that
Rousseau sa? ?hilst seein!, said ?hilst sayin!, then the lo!ocentrist ?ould have ,re,ared in
advance everythin! that the !rammatolo!ue himself ?ishes to say$ 0Rousseau ) ) ) says ?hat he
does not ?ish to say, describes ?hat he does not ?ish to conclude$ that the ,ositive 5is6 the
ne!ative, life 5is6 death, ,resence 5is6 absence)0 5*246 Mie?ed in this ?ay, the readin! ?ould no
lon!er be ,roduction but e;,lication, ho?ever novel a form that e;,lication mi!ht seem to have
taken) The distinction bet?een meanin!:to:say and sayin!, the doublin! of te;t bet?een critic and
author is thus indis,ensable if the commentary and te;t are not to reverse into one another, if the
critic is to have a !uard a!ainst the threat of the autodeconstructive te;t, if it is not at least to
seem that the 0critic ) ) ) has his uses, thou!h this use may be no more than to identify an act of
deconstruction ?hich has al?ays already, in each case differently, been ,erformed by the te;t on
itself)02/
The idea of the autodeconstructive te;t is most easily associated ?ith the identification of
authorial intention ?ith the te;t in its totality, ?ith the assertion that everythin! ?ithin is
circumscribed by ?hat the author ?anted to say, that 5as certain ,ra!matists mi!ht say6 te;tual
meanin! is authorial intention ?ithout sur,lus or shortfall) But the com,lete evacuation of intent
,romotes the idea of autodeconstruction every bit as surely, for ?ithout the cate!ory of intention
there is nothin! ?hatsoever to ,roscribe a!ainst the recu,eration of all te;tual effects for the te;t
itself over and above its inter,retation) 2( 'n the former case, everythin! in the deconstructed te;t
belon!s to the author0s intention, in the latter, the deconstruction belon!s to neither author nor
critic but to the te;t itself) 'n both cases, ho?ever, there is nothin! that can ,ro,erly be
a,,ro,riated for the critic)
Conse@uently, ?hilst the ri!id and ri!orous division of the te;t into t?o strata, or te;tual voices,
serves to steer a ,ath bet?een the transcendental ,resence of intention and its no less
transcendental absence, it simultaneously demarcates a s,ace of criticism ,rotected a!ainst
rea,,ro,riation for either author or te;t) Throu!h introducin! the author, via intention, and throu!h
then settin! very s,ecific limitations on ?hat authorial intention can !overn, Derrida !uards
a!ainst the threat of autodeconstruction, and a!ainst the corres,ondin! domestication or
neutralisation of his o?n labours$ the ssay can be read as neither the ,roduct of an idealised
author, nor as an ideal structure ?hich al?ays and every?here takes account of its o?n
o,erations) The critic here needs intention, but no lon!er as a yardstick by ?hich to evaluate his
inter,retation, but because he needs its other, somethin! to o,,ose to it, to say to his o?n
account)
The undoin! of intention in the =rammatolo!y there?ith inhabits an almost ,arado;ical structure
of conflict and com,licity in that those times at ?hich Rousseauian intention is most vulnerable to
deconstruction are also those at ?hich the =rammatolo!y is most at risk of losin! itself in the
ssay) -hich is not at all to say that Derrida0s te;t is indefinitely recu,erable for Rousseauian
intention,28 but that once a!ain o,,osition to Rousseau si!nifies nothin! so clearly as the
massive recourse made to RousseauG as lo!ocentric e;em,lar, and, in Derrida0s hands, ,roto:
deconstructionist) -hat offers itself in the form of a!!ression ?ill at one and the same time be a
distancin! and defensive ,rocess, the re,ulsion of a dan!erous ,ro;imity, sunderin! Rousseau
and Derrida ?hen their te;ts are most reconciled) The distinction bet?een declaration and
descri,tion ,rimarily effects the division of te;tual voices in a critical area of readin! so
introjective that there is often no immediate ?ay of tellin! te;t and inter,retation a,art$
every?here it underscores that ?hat ?e are readin! at these times is a ,roduction and not a
re,roduction) arlier in the te;t Derrida had said that the ?ork of deconstruction im,lies 0neither
an unconsciousness nor a lucidity on the ,art of the author0, and that readin! 0should ) ) )
abandon these cate!oriesA?hich are also ) ) ) the foundin! cate!ories of meta,hysics0) 5&416 'n
the very ne;t sentence he says that the =rammatolo!y is not a doublin! commentary but is
0certainly a ,roduction because ' do not sim,ly du,licate ?hat Rousseau thou!ht)0 5&416 As the
readin! ,lou!hs dee,er and dee,er into the Rousseauian te;t, this second sentiment
,ro!ressively over?helms the first, since it is only throu!h insistin! that the reader is more
conscious of ?hat the te;t ?as doin! that the =rammatolo!y can mark its advance on Rousseau)
-ith heavier and heavier stresses the te;t must tell us that Rousseau declares but Rousseau
describes, and in statements ?hich often have recourse to the rhetorics of consciousness and
unconsciousness, of Rousseau 0travellin! alon! the system of su,,lementarity ?ith a blind
infallibility, and the sure foot of the slee,?alker0) 5*+16 At the close of the =rammatolo!y, ?hen
this monumental critical a!on finally comes to a close, Derrida ?rites$
Rousseau could not think this ?ritin! that takes ,lace before and ?ithin s,eech ) ) ) Rousseau0s
dream consisted of makin! the su,,lement enter meta,hysics by force) But ?hat does that
mean7 The o,,osition of dream to ?akefulness, is not that a re,resentation of meta,hysics as
?ell7 And ?hat should dream or ?ritin! be if, as ?e kno? no?, one may dream ?hile ?ritin!7
And if the scene of dream is al?ays a scene of ?ritin!7 At the bottom of a ,a!e of mile ) ) )
Rousseau adds a note$ 0 ) ) ) the dreams of a bad ni!ht are !iven to us as ,hiloso,hy) Eou ?ill
say ' too am a dreamerG ' admit it, but ' do ?hat others fail to do, ' !ive my dreams as dreams,
and leave the reader to discover ?hether there is anythin! in them ?hich mi!ht ,rove useful to
those ?ho are a?ake0) 51&3P&46
9as deconstruction forced a breach in the meta,hysics of ,resence, and thus a?oken from
Rousseauism7 <r merely ,ursued the dream of an ori!in of lan!ua!es a little more consciously,
in the manner of reverie7 So much Derridean ?ork issues in this uncertain hour, balanced
bet?een revision and ru,ture, ?hen the voices of critic and author vie and coalesce in such a ?ay
that ?e are never sure ?ho is s,eakin!, or if the reader has ever emer!ed from the te;t he ?as
readin!) The %yth <f -ritin!
it seems to me that 0the history of meta,hysics0 ?as a bad name) Derrida never really finished, or
even undertook, that much:,romised deconstruction) 9e hasn0t been Son of 9eide!!er in that
res,ect)
=ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak 3+
The father of meta,hysics himself dreams throu!hout 0#lato0s #harmacy0) 9e dreams all of
,hiloso,hy as an idealised s,eechG he dreams of a memory ?ith no si!n) 9ere Derrida en!a!es
?ith the inau!ural te;t of that eni!matic history ?hich S,eech and #henomena and -ritin! and
Difference and <f =rammatolo!y have attem,ted to sur,rise)3& 9e ?ill also seek to re,ay the
substantial line of credit these te;ts have dra?n on #lato0s #haedrus3* in their a,,eals to an
0e,och of lo!ocentrism0, to a history of the devaluation of ?ritin!$ 0?hat seems to inau!urate itself
in -estern literature ?ith #lato ?ill not fail to re:edit itself at least in Rousseau, and then in
Saussure)0 5&3(6 Referrin! to these cases as 0three 00eras00 of the re,etition of #latonism0, and to
his ,ath of readin! as 0a ne? thread to follo? and other knots to reco!nise in the history of
,hiloso,hia or the e,isteme0 5&3(6, Derrida affirms that 0the Olin!uisticsO elaborated by #lato,
Rousseau and Saussure must both ,ut ?ritin! out of the @uestion and yet nevertheless borro?
from it, for fundamental reasons, all its demonstrative and theoretical resources0) 5&3(P86 Derrida
identifies ,rotocols familiar from the earlier readin!s$ 0the te;ture of the te;t, readin! and ?ritin!,
mastery and ,lay, the ,arado;es of su,,lementarity0) 5436 Su,,lementary ,lay in Rousseau
discovers a #latonic e@uivalent in the ,harmakon, a similarly e;orbitant fi!ure ?hich derives from
and yet defies authorial intention) Re,layin! the 0Ruestion of %ethod0 outlined by <f
=rammatolo!y, Derrida declares$
The ?ord ,harmakon is cau!ht in a chain of si!nifications) The ,lay of that chain seems
systematic) But the system here is not, sim,ly, that of the intentions of an author ?ho !oes by the
name of #lato) The system is not ,rimarily that of ?hat someone meant:to:say Iun vouloir:direJ)
Finely re!ulated communications are established, throu!h the ,lay of lan!ua!e, amon! diverse
functions of the ?ord and, ?ithin it, amon! diverse strata or re!ions of culture) These
communications or corridors of meanin! can sometimes be declared or clarified by #lato ?hen he
,lays u,on them 0voluntarily0, a ?ord ?e ,ut in @uotation marks because ?hat it desi!nates, to
content ourselves ?ith remainin! ?ithin the closure of these
o,,ositions, is only a mode of 0submission0 to the necessities of a !iven 0lan!ua!e0) >one of these
conce,ts can translate the relation ?e are aimin! at here) #lato can not see the links, can leave
them in the shado? or break them u,) And yet these links !o on ?orkin! of themselves) 'n s,ite
of him7 thanks to him7 in his te;t7 outside his te;t7 but then ?here7 bet?een his te;t and the
lan!ua!e7 for ?hat reader7 at ?hat moment7 To ans?er such @uestions in ,rinci,le and in
!eneral ?ill seem im,ossibleG and that ?ill !ive us the sus,icion that there is some malformation
in the @uestion itself, in each of its conce,ts, in each of the o,,ositions it thus accredits) 583P46
32
The ,eculiar si!nifications that collect around the ?ord 0,harmakon0 emer!e as a !eneral ,rinci,le
of readin!, one ?hich authorises the reader to by,ass 5non:,harmaceutical6 moments of
alto!ether less ambi!uity) -hat seems 0voluntary0 ?ill not translate into ?hat is intendedG the
involuntary, on the other hand, ?ill not rule out the ,ossibility of desire on #lato0s ,art)
Furthermore, the notion of volition is maintained ?hilst also bein! identified as 0OsubmissionO to
the necessities of a !iven Olan!ua!eO0Aas thou!h such submission disallo?s voluntarism ?ithin
the ,lay of those necessities)33 Derrida ?ill indeed ,lay off his o?n readin! a!ainst a model of
#latonic intention ?hich a,,eals to the dis,uted Seventh .etter as a definitively #latonic
moment)34 9avin! seemin!ly sus,ended the distinction bet?een voluntary and involuntary
si!nification, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 follo?s <f =rammatolo!y in utilisin! the ambi!uities of 0dream0
5rVve6 as it combines desire ?ith unconsciousness, volition ?ith the involuntary, ,ur,osiveness
?ith inadvertency) Derrida also uses the im,ersonal case to this end$ ?hen he ?ants us to think
of ?hat #lato demands, ?hat #lato ?ants:to:say, his essay tells us that the #haedrus demands,
that ,hiloso,hy ?ants:to:say) The model of deliberate or!anisation is re@uired, but it cannot be
affirmed as the intention of an author called #lato$ 0The hy,othesis of a ri!orous, sure and subtle
form is naturally more fertile0, Derrida declares at the outset) 54/6 <n the ne;t ,a!e, he ?ill inform
us$ 0At the ,recisely calculated center of the dialo!ueAthe reader can count the linesAthe
@uestion of lo!o!ra,hy is raised)0 54(6 Clearly there is no calculation ?ithout a calculator$
somethin! or, more likely, someone, for e;am,le, calculatedly ,laced the issue of lo!o!ra,hy at
the ,recise mid,oint of the #haedrus)
The @uestion of intention raises itself tellin!ly in Derrida0s len!thy attention to the myth throu!h
?hich the trial of ?ritin! is instituted) 0<ur intention here has only been0, he saysAin a statement
?hich also affirms a #latonic intentionA0to so? the idea that the s,ontaneity, freedom and
fantasy attributed to #lato in his le!end of Theuth ?ere actually su,ervised and limited by
ri!orous necessities)0 5(36 <ne mi!ht e;,ect Derrida0s interests to settle here on the coe;istence
of muthos and lo!os in #lato0s discourse, but the essay does not tend that ?ay) 'nstead, Derrida
uses the myth to lock the #haedrus into a by no? familiar net?ork of o,,ositions$
#lato had to make his tale conform to structural la?s) The most !eneral of these, those that
!overn and articulate the o,,ositions s,eechK?ritin!, lifeKdeath, fatherKson) masterKservant,
firstKsecond, le!itimate sonKor,han:bastard, soulKbody, insideKoutside, !oodK evil,
seriousnessK,lay, dayKni!ht, sunKmoon, etc), also !overn, and accordin! to the same
confi!urations, !y,tian, Babylonian and Assyrian mytholo!y) 5(36
#erha,s Derrida mi!ht even indeed have chanced that #lato also intended his tale to conform to
those la?s$ this ?ill indeed be the unstated assum,tion on ?hich the readin! of the myth of
Theuth ,roceeds) Derrida notes, ?ith some ,atience, the many faces ?orn by the !odAhis
associations ?ith the moon, ?ith reco!nition and learnin!, his later a,,earance in the Cycle of
<siris as the !od char!ed to ?ei!h the hearts of the deceased at their jud!ementsAbut it is the
association of Theuth ?ith death ?hich is taken as a;ial to the #haedrus0s determination of
?ritin!) 3/ 9avin! already introduced the e@uation of s,eech ?ith life in the form of a #latonic
lo!os:Foon 5also established via the So,hist3(6, the fi!ure of Theuth then ,rovides the
countervailin! fi!ure of 0?ritin!:death0) >othin! of course forbids the association$ #lato may have
e;,ected his audience to fore!round Theuth0s connection ?ith death) 9e may also have
antici,ated that the ?hole ran!e of mythic reverberations ?ould sound from the name of the !odG
then a!ain, he mi!ht have been dra?n by an unconscious lo!ic to that ?hich in 0Theuth0 is
moribund) But the claim that 0structural la?s0 are betrayed in this 0choice0 strains credibility) Any
a,,eal to ?hat Derrida himself characterises as 0ItJhe discordant tan!le of mytholo!ical accounts
in ?hich ITheuthJ is cau!ht0 5(46 ?ill be too ha,haFard to fall under the rule of la?$ nor ?ill there
be any !uarantees for ,roceedin! to the claim that 0it !oes ?ithout sayin! that the !od of ?ritin!
must also be the !od of death0) 58&6 Ruite mundanely, dramatic e;i!encies ?ould have !uided
#lato in his dis,lacin! of the =reek benefactor by the !y,tian !od$ #rometheus bein! the
inventor of ?ritin! in =reek mytholo!y, it is unlikely that any audience envisioned by #lato ?ould
credit Bin! Thamus as an adversary of the !reat Titan) 38 'n thematic terms, the @uestion of
?hether #lato intended the amal!am 0Theuth:?ritin!:death0 is im,ossible to ans?er$ the more
fruitful in@uiry ?ould centre on ?hy Derrida should ?ish mortification to claim centre sta!e in the
#haedrus0s discussion of ?ritin!)
'n seekin! to connect the readin! of #lato0s #haedrus to that of Rousseau, 0#lato0s #harmacy0
faces a number of difficulties) -here Rousseau0s ssay on the <ri!in of .an!ua!es ar!ues the
0,ro,er0 ,rimacy of s,eech and ,resence, the #haedrus is not concerned ?ith issues of ori!inA
considered de jure or de facto$ ,lacin! ?ritin!0s ori!ins in Theuth0s hands doubtless res,ects a
tradition ?hereby divine intervention is used to e;,lain civilisation0s be!innin!s, but it ?ill also
ensure that the hierarchical e@uations of s,eech ?ith nature and ?ritin! ?ith culture do not
com,licate this debate)4+ This is not to say that the #haedrus does not borro? its ima!ery and
o,,ositions from the natural order) The section on s,eechK?ritin! is indeed studded ?ith such
fi!ures, many of ?hich Derrida himself has tau!ht us to read there) 'ma!es of !ardens, of suitable
soil, of boundary, defence, enclosure, and cultivation do their ?ork alon!side the ,rocedures of
rational en@uiry$ all of ?hich e;,ress healthy constraint, controlled !ro?th, su,ervised
develo,ment, in an economy of domestication ?hich also defends 5boetheia6 and nurtures that
?hich is bein! tamed) <n the other side, Derrida0s fi!ure of dissemination serves elo@uently to
mark ?ritin! insofar as it drifts, it rolls, 5kulindeitai$ */3e6 e;ceeds domestication, breaks out of
the closed and controlled s,aces the dialo!ic forum, the ideal s,eech situation) 9o?ever, ?hat
the te;t does not ,rovide is a system of ima!ery confi!ured on the a;is of lifeK death) 'ndeed, the
fi!ures of rollin!, driftin!, of disseminatin! e;,ress just as much animationAalbeit in a ?ild,
untrammelled and ,rofli!ate sense of livin!, of bein! animate, of movin!) -hilst the com,arison
of ?ritin! to ,aintin! 5#haedrus, */3d6 re!isters the fi;ed nature of ?ritten lo!oi,4& it is @uickly
succeededAin the same s,eechAby the ima!e of driftin!) 5#haedrus, */3e6 Far from bein!
cadaverous or ,etrified, this ?anderin! free:floatin! ener!y ,laces itself on the disre,utable side
of a distinction bet?een t?o modes of vitality$ one controlled, enclosed and cultivatedG the other,
aleatory, ?anton and ?anderin!)
Derrida, thou!h, is determined to discover the lifeKdeath o,,osition in these four #latonic ,a!es,
and it is no coincidence that he be!ins to talk of ?ritin! substitutin! 0the breathless si!n for the
livin! voice0 58*6 only ?hen Theuth has been bo;ed into the corner of death$
As a livin! thin!, lo!os issues from a father) There is thus for #lato no such thin! as a ?ritten
thin!) There is only a lo!os more or less
alive, more or less distant from itself) -ritin! is not an inde,endent order of si!nificationG it is
?eakened s,eech, somethin! not com,letely dead$ a livin!:dead, a re,rieved cor,se, a deferred
life, a semblance of breath) 5&216
#resumably this claim does not ?ish to be taken in any historical sense in seekin! to e;,loit the
idea of ?ritin! as eidolon, as 9adean shade of the livin! ?ord, but the meta,horic insistence
could be read as an attem,t to have the #haedrus say ?hat a Rousseau ?ould have it say as
much as ?hat a Socrates or #lato did say) Certainly, the missions of the #haedrus are no more
romantic than they are in @uest of a noble ,rimitivism embodied in s,eech$ #lato0s te;t does not
e;,ort the net?ork 0s,eechK?ritin!, lifeK death0 into ?estern conce,tuality so much as Derrida0s
mytholo!ical e;cursus im,orts a Rousseauian sense of ?ritin! into a dialo!ue ?hich is concerned
?ith the ethical and e,istemolo!ical status of discursive media) 'ndeed, the #haedrus condemns
the s,oken in the same terms as the ?ritten) 5#haedrus, *//e6 4* Alto!ether banally, ?e shall
find that statements are evaluated throu!h the validity of their lo!oi rather than their le;is, for their
,ro;imity to 0justice and honour and !oodness0) 5#haedrus, */(a6
A second area of difficulty in Derrida0s treatment of the myth of ?ritin! centres on his identification
of the #latonic vie? ?ith the ,ronouncement of Bin! Thamus) Talkin! of the ,lay of si!nification
set in motion by the ,harmakon, Derrida asserts$ 0't is ,recisely this ambi!uity that #lato, throu!h
the mouth of the Bin!, attem,ts to master, to dominate by insertin! its definition into sim,le, clear:
cut o,,ositions0) 5&+1$ my em,hasis6 The si!nificance of this statement to the essay0s construal of
authorial intention need hardly be underlined) The 0voice0 of a mythic character is !iven by Derrida
as an authorial 0voice0$ Thamus becomes the ,lace from ?hich the #latonic ?isdom s,eaks) 'n
tracin! the intricate chain of the ,harmakon, Derrida ne!lects to consider the verti!inous ,lay of
si!natures in this scene$ in a dialo!ue ?ritten by #lato, Bin! Thamus 0s,eaks0 the jud!ement on
?ritin! ?ithin a myth ?hich is 0s,oken0 by Socrates) >arrative, mimetic and technical
considerations militate a!ainst declarin! that it is Socrates or #lato ?ho s,eaks in the Bin!0s
?ordsG and all this before one even be!ins to ask ho? mythic lo!oi accommodate to dialectical
lo!oi in a tale ?hose authorshi, is immediately challen!ed by #haedrus) 5#haedrus, */3b6 ven
?ere the jud!ement of Thamus sho?n to be in consort ?ith the Socratic vie?,ointAa task ?hich
is rendered counterintuitive ?hen ?ei!hed a!ainst that reca,itulatory statement at */(bAd
5?hich ?e shall consider in due course6ADerrida ?ould still be called u,on to balance the
delicate scales of the Socratic ,roblem)41 %oreover, the first a;iom of jud!ement established by
Thamus is in clear contradiction ?ith ?hat Derrida justly takes to be a central ar!ument of the
#haedrus) The stron!est objection #lato makes to ?ritin! s,ecifies its se,aration of a discourse
from the subject ?ho ,roduced it, a se,aration ?hich or,hans a ,iece of ?ritin!, leaves it hel,less
before incom,etent, mali!n and abusive readers$ 0the com,osition ) ) ) drifts all over the ,lace ) )
) it doesn0t kno? ho? to address the ri!ht ,eo,le, and not to address the ?ron!) 5#haedrus,
*/3e6 9o?ever, the mythic discourse ,rescribes the contrary$
the kin! ans?ered and said, 0< man full of arts 5technikotate6, to one it is !iven to create the
thin!s of art, and to another to jud!e ?hat measure of harm and of ,rofit they have for those that
shall em,loy them) And so it is that you, by reason of your tender re!ard for the ?ritin! that is
your offs,rin!, have declared the very o,,osite of its true effect) 5*/2eP*/3a6
-ritin! as techne is se,arated from the fatherG creator and creation, inventor and invention, are
sundered because the filial bond ,recludes objective evaluation) Accordin! to Derrida, s,eech is
,raised for maintainin! the unity of ,hiloso,hical s,eaker and statement in the ,resentG ?ritten
?ords are condemned for their ,arricidal usur,ation of the father:author) 42 -hile Theuth is not
se,arated from a ?ritten discourse but from the medium of ?ritin! he has invented, the sanctity of
the ,aternal relation is here desecrated by Bin! Thamus) The art of ?ritin! ?ould be defended
?ith all too much ,arental solicitude by the father of ?ritin! 5,ater on !rammaton6) 't is universally
the case, Thamus declares, that the father ?ill never jud!e im,artiallyG of all ,eo,le, therefore, the
father is the only one to be debarred by ri!ht from the court of jud!ement) The re!al defender of
s,eech here introduces the very breachAthe se,aration of son from father, of creation from
creatorAfor ?hich ?ritin! is later to be condemned$ any discourse 0?hen it is ill:treated and
unfairly abused ) ) ) al?ays needs its ,arent 5,ater6 to come to its hel,)0 5#haedrus, */3e6 So
stark is the contradiction bet?een mythical account and ensuin! dialectical e;chan!e that ?ere
?e to look for a #latonic 0mouth,iece0 in this overdetermined scene, there ?ould be no more and
no less justification for reversin! the Derridean identification to see the dialectical ,osition as
re,resented by the !od of ?ritin!)43
'n any case, it can never be the ,ur,ose of the ensuin! dialo!ue to echo or sim,ly elaborate Bin!
Thamus0s jud!ement$ the re!al rejection is am,ly ironised by the fact that ?ritin! had not been
refused to the human ?orld in ?hich the #haedrus ?as ?ritten) 'ndeed, from this ,osition, the
reader ?ho reads #lato alon!side Derrida mi!ht be!in to ?onder if the #haedrus ?ishes to set
itself a!ainst ?ritin! in anythin! like the re!al or Derridean manner) There is #latonic scholarshi,
?hich sees the #haedrus as a defence of #lato0s o?n ,ractice of ,hiloso,hical ?ritin!, one in
?hich the Socrates ?ho s,eaks is continually ironised and undercut by the #lato ?ho ?rites) 44
-e need not !o this far, thou!h, to challen!e Derrida0s conviction that this dialo!ue bears first
?itness to 0the e;clusion and the devaluation of ?ritin!0) 5&3(6
<ne of the ,eculiarities of 0#lato0s #harmacy0 is that its ar!ument travels some &&+ ,a!es to
arrive ?here the #haedrus0s reflections on ?ritin! be!in) The admirable movement ?hereby
?ritin! is rea,,ro,riated is the movement by ?hich the te;t of Derrida !lides under that of
#lato)4/ Derrida is of course a?are of this$ he ?ill be conscious that his te;t has not been read
?hen commentators take 0#lato0s #harmacy0 to undo an o,,osition ?hich the #haedrus sets u, in
classical terms) The by:no? standard ,ro,osition that 0#lato sho?s a meta,hysical ,reference for
s,eech over ?ritin!0 is not ade@uate to the ?ork of the #haedrus) <ne mi!ht risk, at most, the
banal su!!estion that 0#lato sho?s an ethical ,reference for s,eech insofar as the medium of
s,eech is the medium ,ar e;cellence of dialo!ue0 but even such a @ualified distinction is not
dra?n by the #haedrus ?ith determinin! force) >othin!, indeed, is of a ,iece here, and the
relationshi, bet?een s,eech and ?ritin! ?ill be one of distribution and overla, rather than of
antinomy) #lato discriminates bet?een !ood and bad s,eech in such fashion that the latter finds
itself in the ,lace of a re,udiated ?ritin!) ni!matic on first ins,ection, this te;tual economy
becomes entirely coherent if the reader re!isters ho? the #haedrus is !overned by the o,,osition
bet?een monolo!ic and dialo!ic discourse)4( Socrates0 first objection to ?ritin! ali!hts on its
unres,onsive and monolo!ic nature$
The ,ainter0s ,roducts stand before us as thou!h they ?ere alive, but if you @uestion them, they
maintain a most majestic silence) 't is the same ?ith ?ritten ?ordsG they seem to talk to you as
thou!h they ?ere intelli!ent, but if you ask them anythin! about ?hat they say, from a desire to
be instructed, they !o on tellin! you just the same thin! for ever) 5#haedrus, */3d6
't is not absence of life that carries over from ,aintin! to ?ritin! so much as the inability to hear or
re?ard @uestionin!) All discourse ?hich offers itself to debate, to @uestion:and:ans?er, is
a,,roved in #lato0s te;t in the same movement by ?hich all unres,onsive, univocal
communications are condemned) These latter discourses ?ill include both ?ritin! and non:
dialo!ic s,eech) 't is not s,eech 5as a lo!os ,resent to the individual6 but dialo!ic s,eech that
#lato u,holds in o,,osition to both ?ritin! and unres,onsive s,eech) 5#haedrus, *//dAe6 48
<ratory or orally:delivered ,oems are e@ually ri!id ,roductions if their subjects are unavailable or
inca,able of res,ondin!) As Socrates remarks else?here$ 0if one asks any of them an additional
@uestion, like books they cannot either ans?er or ask a @uestion on their o?n account0)
5#rota!oras, 1*8a6/+ As ?e ?ill see some?hat later, the dominance of the monolo!icKdialo!ic
o,,osition ?ill also e;,lain ho? it is that the #haedrus by no means decides a!ainst inscri,tion
but favours a ?ritin! ?hich is made dialo!ically ans?erable to ,hiloso,hy)
'ndeed, so far from bein! o,,osed in meta,hysical terms, s,eech and ?ritin! are considered
under the same headin! durin! the len!thy discussion of rhetoric 5*38eA*/2b6 ?hich ,recedes
the myth of ?ritin!) -hat distinctions the #haedrus makes cut across both cate!ories) =ood
?ritin! is e@uated ?ith !ood s,eech, bad s,eech is e@uated ?ith bad ?ritin!Ajust as the later
section on the inferiority of the ?ritten ?ord ?ill e@uate non:dialectical s,eech ?ith non:dialectical
?ritin!) The @uestion of ?hether one s,eaks or ?rites is irrelevant to discursive ,ro,riety$/&
S<CRATS$ ) ) ) do you su,,ose that anyone ) ) ) and ?hatever his animosity to?ard .ysias,
could re,roach him sim,ly on the !round that he ?rites7
#9ADR"S$ -hat you say certainly makes that im,robable, for a,,arently he ?ould be
re,roachin! ?hat he ?anted to do himself)
S<CRATS$ Then the conclusion is obvious, that there is nothin! shameful in the mere ?ritin! of
s,eeches)
#9ADR"S$ <f course)
S<CRATS$ But in s,eakin! and ?ritin! shamefully and badly, instead of as one should, that is
?here the shame comes in, ' take it)
#9ADR"S$ Clearly)
S<CRATS$ Then ?hat is the nature of !ood ?ritin! and bad7 's it incumbent u,on us,
#haedrus, to e;amine .ysias on this ,oint, and all such as have ?ritten or mean to ?rite anythin!
at all, ?hether in the field of ,ublic affairs or ,rivate, ?hether in the verse of the ,oet or the ,lain
s,eech of ,rose7 5*3(bAd6
To ?rite in ,lain s,eech) The distinction bet?een vocality and inscri,tion is not dra?n) To the
contrary, it is su,erseded) From its be!innin!s in a discussion of the merits of .ysias0s
s,eech?ritin!, the te;t has moved to the utmost !enerality in its concern ?ith all modes of
discourse) /* Throu!h to the elaboration of the myth of ?ritin! 5*38eP*/2b6, le!omenonAusually
rendered as 0thin! said0Amust be taken in the sense of 0thin! ?ritten or s,oken0)/1
That 0#lato0s #harmacy0 should overlook this ,assa!e is surely si!nificant)/2 The trial of
lo!o!ra,hy closes the !a, bet?een s,eech and ?ritin! in advance not only of the trial of ?ritin!,
but of the Derridean readin! itself) 'n so minutely focused a readin!, this omission ?ill not smack
of carelessness) >or should ?e be blind to the fact that 0#lato0s #harmacy0 does not see fit to cite
the concludin! remarks of the #haedrus 5*//a4P*/8b36) 'n a readin! ?hich closes its voya!e into
the mytholo!ical hors:te;te of Theuth by sayin! 0I&Jet us return to the te;t of #lato, assumin! ?e
have ever really left it0, 5836 the e;clusion of the concludin! section can only astonish) Some
reconstruction, ho?ever, of the close of the #haedrus su!!ests that Derrida0s essay is
increasin!ly threatened by the te;t it is readin!) .et us identify the ,oint at ?hich 0#lato0s
#harmacy0 desists from any further citation of the #haedrus)
Derrida has reached the ,oint ?here his te;t can declare that 0ItJhe dividin! line no? runs less
bet?een ,resence and the trace than bet?een the dialectical trace and the nondialectical trace,
bet?een ,lay in the O!oodO sense and ,lay in the ObadO sense of the ?ord)0 5&336 To e;em,lify
?hich, he cites the e;chan!e 5*/4dP*//a6 in ?hich Socrates allo?s ?ritin! as amusement
5,aidia6, as a 0store of reminders0 5hu,omnemata6 to assua!e declinin! memory) The citation then
allo?s Derrida to e;,lore the asymmetrical o,,osition of seriousnessK,lay 5s,oudeK,aidia6 in a
closin! section entitled 0#lay$ From the #harmakon to the .etter and from Blindness to the
Su,,lement0) Althou!h len!thy e;traction is made from numerous other dialo!ues, the #haedrus
,lays no further ,art)/3 This terminus ?ill suit the ,harmaceutical readin! ?hich can then analyse
0the #latonic re,ression of ,lay0 as analo!ous ?ith the re,ression of ?ritin!$ to this end, Derrida
insists on translatin! ,aidia by 0,lay0)/4 Ca,tivatin! as it is, Derrida0s discussion of ,lay serves to
cancel the o,eration by ?hich the #haedrus reconsiders the re,ression of ?ritin!) #rior to that
momentA,erha,s ,re,arin! for itASocrates declares$ 0nothin! that has ever been ?ritten
?hether in verse or ,rose merits much serious attentionAand for that matter nothin! that has
ever been s,oken in the declamatory fashion ?hich aims at mere ,ersuasion ?ithout any
@uestionin! or e;,osition0) 5#haedrus, *//e6 't is not s,eech @ua s,eech that is at issue but a
,articular form of dialo!ic discourse, one ?hose terms the 0s,oken0 can trans!ress as readily as
the 0?ritten0) The contest of 0s,eech0 and 0?ritin!0 is not here conducted throu!h the meta,hysical
cate!ory of 0,resence0) Rather it is addressed to ethical and e,istemolo!ical issues ?hich s,lit the
notion of s,eech into res,onsible, truth:seekin! dialo!ue on the one hand, and do!matisin!
monolo!ism on the other) >aturally it ?ill be first and foremost a matter of the validity of ?hat is
said or ?rittenG of ?hether #lato considers the communication to be a truthful discourse 5alethinos
lo!os6) -here the rece,tion of lo!oi is concerned, it is not the fact of s,eech itself but the
,resentation of a discourse ?ithin a ,eda!o!ic frame?ork of @uestion:and:ans?er that
determines its value) Thus ?hen Derrida, in a later ?ork, describes idealised s,eech as
embodyin! the s,eaker0s 0absolutely current and ,resent intention or attention, the ,lenitude of
his meanin!0, // he is su,erim,osin! a meta,hysics of intention on a #latonic cor,us ?hich
sho?s the dee,est sus,icion to?ard the ade@uacy of any natural lan!ua!eA?ritten or s,okenA
to intention, consciousness or meanin!) The very insistence on @uestion:and:ans?er derives
from #lato0s conviction that s,oken discourse cannot be trans,arent to intention) The Cratylus
?ould have somethin! to say on this ,oint, and in the uthy,hro, the lo!oi run off like the statues
of Daedalus 5uthy,hro, &&cPd6)/( So far from s,eech housin! a conscious, ,rivate and self:
,resent intuition of the s,eaker0s, it is the ,ublic ,rocessin! of discourse rather than any
su,,osed coincidence of thou!ht and e;,ression that dictates the #haedrus0s ,reference for a
dialectical method ?hich can select the reci,ients of its discourse or silence itself ?hen the
audience seems ina,,ro,riate)
The conjunction of s,eech and ?ritin! under a ne!ative as,ect at *//dPe is follo?ed by a
reca,itulation in ?hich the criti@ue of ?ritin! is @ualified$
S<CRATS$ Do you no? !o and ) ) ) deliver a messa!e, first to .ysias and all other com,osers
of discourses 5lo!oi6, secondly to 9omer and all others ?ho have ?ritten ,oetry ?hether to be
read or sun!, and thirdly to Solon and all such as are authors of ,olitical com,ositions under the
name of la?sAto ?it, that if any of them has done his ?ork ?ith a kno?led!e of the truth, can
defend his statements ?hen challen!ed, and can demonstrate the inferiority of his ?ritin!s out of
his o?n mouth, he ou!ht not to be desi!nated by a name dra?n from those ?ritin!s, but by one
that indicates his serious ,ursuit)
#9ADR"S$ Then ?hat names ?ould you assi!n him7
S<CRATS$ To call him ?ise, #haedrus, ?ould, ' think, be !oin! too farG the e,ithet is ,ro,er
only to a !od) A name that ?ould fit him better, and have more seemliness, ?ould be 0lover of
?isdom0, or somethin! similar) 5#haedrus, */(bPd6 /8
-hen orally su,,lemented, ?ritin! is acce,table 5albeit in an inferior case6$ if its author ans?ers
lucidly to ,hiloso,hy, he ans?ers to the name of ,hiloso,her) To be sure, the 0?ritin!0 Socrates
describes above is very far from the 0,athbreakin! ?ritin!0 Derrida ,romotes) -ritin! is both
contained and constrained by dialectical ,hiloso,hyG al?ays under sub ,oena, the ?ritten ?ord
a?aits favourable jud!ement from the dialectical court before it may travel) .ike dialo!ic s,eech,
it cannot disseminate, move beyond the ?atch of ,hiloso,hy) >or can it treat itself as a fi;ed or
finished entity but must ever ada,t and rene? itself as s,oken su,,lement and in accordance
?ith the demands of Socratic interro!ation)
>onetheless, all such objections can be met ?hilst ackno?led!in! that ?ritin! is here tolerated in
a manner one ?ould never sus,ect ?ere 0#lato0s #harmacy0 the ?indo? throu!h ?hich the
#haedrus ?as ,erceived) <nly just indicted on the !eneral !round of an unres,onsiveness that
covers much of that ?hich is s,oken, ?ritin! is never for a moment interdicted in this movement)
-ritin! can ,artici,ate in a 0serious0 ,ursuit 5and here the ,otential relevance of this ,assa!e to
Derrida0s meditation on 0,lay0 should be noted6 if only insofar as the 5?ritten6 criti@ue of ?ritin! is
serious) %ore im,ortantly, the fact that ?e do not find here a 0#lato ?ho maintains both the
e;teriority of ?ritin! and its ,o?er of maleficient ,enetration, its ability to affect or infect ?hat lies
dee,est inside0 5&&+6 authorises us in askin! ?hy Derrida does not attend to a closin! statement
?hich bears u,on all the themes of 0#lato0s #harmacy0)
0#lato0s #harmacy0 has set out to discover 0ne? chords, ne? concordances ) ) ) in minutely
fashioned counter,oint ) ) ) a more secret or!anisation of themes, of names, of ?ords0) 54/6 A
readin! ?ith such an em,hasis on 0ne?ness0, on revelation, can have no room for an e;,licit
dra?in!:to!ether of s,eech and ?ritin!) By ne!lectin! to cite such ,assa!es 5*3(bPdG */(bPd6,
Derrida obscures the ,roblematic of ?ritin! in #lato alto!ether more than the dialectician ?ho is
accused here of 0dra?in! the curtains over the da?nin! of the -est0) 5&4/6 The ,harmaceutical
readin! deconstructs the o,,osition bet?een s,eech and ?ritin! on the basis of a sunderin!
?hich never takes ,lace) There is a narrative strate!y in certain ,hiloso,hical ?orks ?hereby a
,ostulate is hidden from the demonstration so as to make its ,resentation the more conclusive in
closin!G some?hat similarly, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 only sho?s ho? the s,eechK?ritin! o,,osition is
insu,,ortable ?ithin the #haedrus by insistin! on a classic form of the o,,osition ?hich #lato0s
te;t does not ,ro,a!ate) The claim that 0ItJhe dividin! line no? runs less bet?een ,resence and
the trace than bet?een the dialectical trace and the nondialectical trace0 5&336 amounts to little
more than sayin! that for #lato there is !ood and bad discourse inde,endently of the media
throu!h ?hich they are articulated) The Derridean ,erformance thus de,ends on the su,,ression
of those moments ?hen ,hiloso,hy 5?isely6 refuses to inau!urate any e,och of lo!ocentrism)
These tensions are abundantly evident ?hen Derrida chooses to remind us of the e,ochal
si!nificance of both the #haedrus and the readin! of it ?hich 0#lato0s #harmacy0 has ,roduced$
Accordin! to a ,attern that ?ill dominate all of -estern ,hiloso,hy, !ood ?ritin! 5natural, livin!,
kno?led!eable, intelli!ible, internal, s,eakin!6 is o,,osed to bad ?ritin! 5a moribund, i!norant,
e;ternal, mute artifice for the senses6) And the !ood one can be desi!nated only throu!h the
meta,hor of the bad one) %eta,horicity is the lo!ic of contamination and the contamination of
lo!ic) Bad ?ritin! is for !ood a model of lin!uistic desi!nation and a simulacrum of essence) And
if the net?ork of o,,osin! ,redicates that link one ty,e of ?ritin! to the other contains in its
meshes all the conce,tual o,,ositions of 0#latonism0Ahere considered the dominant structure of
the history of meta,hysicsAthen it can be said that ,hiloso,hy is ,layed out in the ,lay bet?een
t?o ty,es of ?ritin!) -hereas all it ?anted to do ?as to distin!uish bet?een ?ritin! and s,eech)
5&28$ my em,hases6
All the conce,tual o,,ositions of #latonism are contained in the ,lay bet?een t?o ty,es of
?ritin!G #latonism dominates the history of meta,hysicsG therefore the #haedrus establishes the
contradictory ,attern ?hich both stabilises and destabilises the history of ,hiloso,hy) -hat mi!ht
it mean for an o,,osition of this kind to dominate all of ,hiloso,hy7 For ,hiloso,hy to be ,layed
out in the ,lay bet?een t?o ty,es of ?ritin!7 For all the themes of the ?est to be reducible to a
!ood ?ritin! ?hich mas@uerades as s,oken ,resence and a bad ?ritin! ?hich obscenely ?rites
itself7 <n an em,irical level, and one clearly not intended by Derrida, ?e could summon Aristotle,
?ho, thou!h de,endent on thou!ht as lo!os, casti!ates the idea of an ideal s,eech situation in
the scene of dialectical instructionG the very same ?ho sees s,eech as unscientific, ill:befittin! the
,ro,er ,ractice of ,hiloso,hy) (+ A scholasticism could also be invoked in ?hich the ,arado;ical
structure of devaluation and de,endence is found not in relation to ?ritin! but in the attem,ts of
<ckham, Abelard and others to esca,e s,eech as the model for the determination of meanin!)(&
>umerous other ,ath?ays could be follo?edAincludin! those leadin! to and from a Baconian
rationalism ?hich e;,licitly defines itself in terms of the ethos and e,isteme of ?ritin!Aall of
?hich ?ould reveal that the ,roblems encountered by Demida0s ,hantasmatic history derive from
his desire to !raft the technolo!ical onto the meta,hysical in such a ?ay that the media of s,eech
and ?ritin! are deconstructed lon! before their ade@uacy to the cate!ories of ,resence and
absence has been assessed) As media, s,eech and ?ritin! are lar!ely e;i!uous to a tradition
?hich concerns itself ?ith a ratio and not an oratio$ the mimetic subordination of ?ritin! to s,eech
occurs only in an e;teriority or 0realm of e;,ression0 ?hich is not an object of ,rimary concern to
the meta,hysician) That this ratio is sometimes ,ortrayed as a 0?ritin! in the soul0 does not im,ly
any contradiction ?ith the mimetic subordination of ?ritin! to s,eech$ if anythin!, it sho?s ho? far
tradition is from identifyin! s,eech ?ith lo!os) 'ndeed, as %artin lsky su!!ests, 0for many
Scholastic lo!icians, s,eech and thou!ht are at odds0$ 0The act of s,eech is a moment of stru!!le
bet?een the mental articulation of a thou!ht and its e;,ression in the sounds of convention:
bound s,eech0)(* -hat Derrida uncovers as an arche:?ritin! is already for the meta,hysician a
lan!ua!e of ,urely mental conce,ts ?hich e;ists ,rior to its ,honetic or !ra,hic e;,ression$ if this
lan!ua!e is best described as an interiorised ?ritin! ,rior to its inscri,tion as marks:on:the:,a!e,
it is because s,eech and ?ritin! are not set in o,,osition by the @uest to describe ?hat <ckham
called 0mental ?ords0 ?hich 0reside in the intellect alone and are inca,able of bein! uttered
aloud0)(1 That the meta,hor of a 0?ritin! in the soul0 served best to ca,ture this mental lan!ua!e
reveals a tradition ?hich, so far from bein! in contradiction ?ith itself, has never demonstrated a
si!nificant or consistent hostility to ?ritin!) <nce more, then, the failure of transcendental
ar!uments or em,irical evidence for his 0history of meta,hysics0 drives Derrida to an e;em,lary
author for the ,ostulation of all ,ervasive fear of ?ritin! in ?estern conce,tuality, and ?e should
not be sur,rised at his un?illin!ness to unveil the lo!o!ra,hic or reca,itulatory ,hases of the
#haedrus) =iven the insecurity of the history of lo!ocentrism announced in <f =rammatolo!yAa
history ?hich constructed itself on the ,romise and collateral of the #haedrusA?e find a #latonic
lo!ocentrism only definitively articulated in a Seventh .etter ?hose authenticity remains far from
secure) (2 -e ?ould also find a #latonism ?hich also s,eaks in favour of ?ritin!, as in the .a?s
?hen the te;t declares that ?ritin! 0?ill be a most valuable aid to intelli!ent le!islation because
Re!al ,rescri,tions, once ,ut into ?ritin!, remain al?ays on record as thou!h to challen!e the
@uestion of all time to come)0 5.a?s ], (8&a6(3 Readin! @uite casually, ?e ?ould also encounter
a #latonism ?hichAso far from dreamin! of 0a memory ?ith no si!n0 5&+86A?ants, and in all
e@ui,oise, in all res,ite from contradictory ,lay, to ?rite mneme inde,endently of hy,omnesis, to
read ?ritin! as the truth of memory) 'n ?ritin!$
S<CRATS$ 't seems to me that at such times our soul is like a book)
#R<TARC9"S$ 9o? so7
S<CRATS$ 't a,,ears to me that the conjunction of memory ?ith sensations, to!ether ?ith the
feelin!s conse@uent u,on memory and sensation, may be said as it ?ere to ?rite ?ords in our
souls) And ?hen this e;,erience ?rites ?hat is true, the result is that true o,inion and true
assertions s,rin! u, in us ) ) ) 5#hilebus, 18a6
-e ?ould find, in short, a history of the re,ression of the ?ritten si!n ?hich does not commence
until Rousseau, a sym,tomatic history ?hich, by committin! itself to the 0all0 of ,hiloso,hyA0a
,attern that ?ill dominate all of -estern ,hiloso,hy0 5my em,hasis6Ahas a totalisin! relation to
the very tradition ?hose dee,est ,resu,,ositions it claims to have revealed) 0#lato0s #harmacy0
!ives us no o,tions but those of assent or dissent in terms of this myth of rationalism0s ori!in in
the ,rivile!in! of s,eech) To this e;tent, ?e find ourselves at a considerable methodolo!ical
distance from the Derrida ?ho 5in the ?ords of Derek Attrid!e6 sees the te;t as 0radically situated
A?ritten and read and re:read at ,articular times and ,lacesAand as ,ossessin! a sin!ularity
5each time6 ?hich can never be reduced by criticism or theoretical contem,lation)0(4 Althou!h
attentive to #lato0s relation to the So,histic discourses of his day, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 situates the
#haedrus in the rarefied, stratos,heric conte;t of a history of lo!ocentrism) 'f readin! involves a
,lay bet?een the !eneral and the sin!ular, then the attem,t to locate #lato0s te;t at the o,enin!
of a history of the re,ression of the ?ritten si!n does not affirm the sin!ularity of an act of ?ritin!
5#lato0s #haedrus6 and an act of readin! 50#lato0s #harmacy06$ or, rather, the readin! ?orks itself
out in the contest bet?een the sin!ular force of a readin! and the !eneralised structure ?hich that
readin! is forced to inhabit) The readin!, @ua readin!, res,ects sin!ularity in a finely calibrated
manner, but the !randiose e;,ectation that it ?ill identify the conce,tual ori!in of the e,isteme
cannot ?ithstand that distinctive idiom, that si!nature to ?hich 0#lato0s #harmacy0 is the most
arrestin! countersi!nature) For this reason, Derrida does indeed raise the #haedrus to a level of
0interest and com,le;ity un!lim,sed by more orthodo; commentators0, (/ and this in s,ite of his
claims concernin! the 0history of meta,hysics0) Eet, this achievement can neither be the ,roduct
of the sin!ularity of its readin! alone$ 0An absolute, absolutely ,ure sin!ularity, if there ?ere one,
?ould not even sho? u,, or at least ?ould not be available for readin!) To become readable, it
has to be divided, to ,artici,ate and belon!)0(( This structure of ,artici,ation and belon!in! is
over?rou!ht in 0#lato0s #harmacy0 and ,rom,ts us to look for another level of !enerality ?ithin
?hich the essay belon!s) 's there, then, an alternative ?ay of ackno?led!in! the ,o?er, the
ori!inality and claim u,on !enerality of an essay ?hich fails to establish the o,,osition bet?een
s,eech and ?ritin! as a dominant, if re,ressed, theme of ?estern ,hiloso,hy7
'n !lancin! comments, in his attention to the detail of the #latonic myth, Derrida hints at a third
term in his analysis) Alon! a relay of deferrals ?ithout conclusion, he ,romises to s,eak of 0ItJhe
kinshi, of ?ritin! and myth, both of them distin!uished from lo!os and dialectics0) 5/36(8 <ne
mi!ht come closer to a ,attern ?hich dominates all of ,hiloso,hy throu!h seein! the !ood
discourse of lo!osA?hether considered as ,hiloso,hy or scienceAas seekin! to found itself on
the systematic e;clusion of muthosG just as #lato0s ceuvre ?ould indeed be the foundin! moment
of this e;clusion, 0the most ,o?erful effort to master it, to ,revent anyone0s ever hearin! of it, to
conceal it by dra?in! the curtains over the da?nin! of the -est0) 5&4/6 <ne could also ar!ue,
contentiously but ?ith resonance, that #lato could not master the ,lay of muthos ?ithin his o?n
te;t, that, ?hether in the foundin! myth of the Re,ublic, or of the cicadas and ?ritin! in the
#haedrus, lo!os had not fully se,arated itself from the mythical ?ritin! ?hich it sou!ht to
su,,lant) <ne mi!ht do this ?hilst res,ectin! Socratic em,hases on the res,onsiveness of
discourse, on lo!os as e;,ressed throu!h @uestion:and:ans?er to sho? that ?hat #lato fears in
?ritin! he fears also in the orality of the e,ic tradition, in any discourse ?hich mi!ht solidify into
an unres,onsive, 0un@uestionable0 body of received o,inions, of do!ma)8+ .ess an a?k?ard
attem,t to revise the history of meta,hysics, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 mi!ht then reveal itself as a
startlin! contribution to the ancient @uarrel bet?een ,oetry and ,hiloso,hyAa Birth of Tra!edy, if
you ?ill, for the t?entieth century, an ar!ument ?hich enacts its o?n challen!e to ,oetic
banishment in the form of a ,athbreakin! and literary ?ritin! that ?rites itself beyond the vi!il of
,hiloso,hy) Such a readin! ?ould note ho? Derrida0s most s,ectacular effects are ,oetic$ his
,ushin! of the Socratic ima!es of seeds, of scatterin!, of dissemination to the limits of their
enduranceG his anthro,omor,hisms ?hich ,roceed from the sli!htest te;tual su!!estionsG the
resonant ,athos he reads beneath the dialectical treatment of ?ritin!$
I-ritin!J rolls this ?ay and that like someone ?ho has lost his ?ay, ?ho doesn0t kno? ?here he is
!oin!, havin! strayed from the correct ,ath, the ri!ht direction, the rule of rectitude, the normG but
also like someone ?ho has lost his ri!hts, an outla?, a ,ervert, a bad seed, a va!rant, an
adventurer, a bum) -anderin! in the streets he doesn0t even kno? ?ho he is, ?hat his identityAif
he has oneAmi!ht be, ?hat his name is, ?hat his father0s name is) 9e re,eats the same thin!
every time he is @uestioned on the street corner, but he can no lon!er re,eat his ori!in) >ot to
kno? ?here one comes from or ?here one is !oin!, for a discourse ?ith no !uarantor, is not to
kno? ho? to s,eak at all, to be in a state of infancy) 5&21P26
-ritin! is the miserable son) .e misLrable) Socrates0 tone is sometimes cate!orical and
condemnatoryAdenouncin! a ?ay?ard, rebellious son, an immoderation or ,erversionAand
sometimes touched and condescendin!A,ityin! a defenceless livin! thin!, a son abandoned by
his father) 'n any event the son is lost) 5&236
9ere ?e ?ould see a Derrida addin! his o?n inimitable touch to this @uarrel bet?een ,oets and
,hiloso,hers, a reader ?orkin! only at the level of lan!ua!e and at its limits, a defender of ,oetry
?ho drives Dionysian ,lay throu!h the Socratic rationalism of #lato0s te;t) -e ?ould then read
the ,harmaceutical readin! as a myth, as a fabulous history ?hich uses the te;t of ,hiloso,hy to
s,ectacularly ,lace itself beyond reach, beyond account to the norms of objectivity and
methodolo!ical ,rudence) %ay one read Derrida0s readin! in this ?ay7 As a su,ersubtle te;t in
?hich lo!os and muthos mas@uerade, if only for an hour, as s,eech and ?ritin!7
At the very close of 0#lato0s #harmacy0, Derrida shifts re!ister in a dramatic andAfor manyA
embarrassin! fashion) >arratin! a myth ?hich ,erversely renounces the ,oetic effects achieved
by the readin! in its more formal !uise, he bids us enter the mind of ,hiloso,hy at its ince,tion$
After closin! the ,harmacy #lato ?ent to retire, to !et out of the sun) 9e took a fe? ste,s in the
darkness to?ard the back of his reserves, found himself leanin! over the ,harmakon, decided to
analyse)
-ithin the thick, cloudy li@uid, tremblin! dee, inside the dru!, the ?hole ,harmacy stood
reflected, re,eatin! the abyss of the #latonic ,hantasm)
The analyst cocks his ears, tries to distin!uish bet?een t?o re,etitions)
9e ?ould like to isolate the !ood from the bad, the true from the false)
9e leans over further$ they re,eat each other)
9oldin! the ,harmakon in one hand, the calamus in the other, #lato mutters as he transcribes the
,lay of formulas) 'n the enclosed s,ace of the ,harmacy, the reverberations of the monolo!ue are
immeasurably am,lified) The ?alled:in voice strikes a!ainst the rafters, the ?ords come a,art,
bits and ,ieces of sentences are se,arated, disarticulated ,arts be!in to circulate throu!h the
corridors, become fi;ed for a round or t?o, translate each other, become rejoined, bounce off
each other, contradict each other, make trouble, tell on each other, come back like ans?ers,
or!anise their e;chan!es, ,rotect each other, institute an internal commerce, take themselves for
a dialo!ue) Full of meanin!) A ?hole story) An entire history) All of ,hiloso,hy) 5&486
's Derrida here mimin! the ori!ins of his fabulous history of lo!ocentrism, just as #lato mimed the
myth of ?ritin! as a !ift refused7 's this section to make !ood the earlier claim that 0if readin! is
?ritin! ) ) ) the is that cou,les readin! ?ith ?ritin! must ri, a,art07 5426 #erha,s Derrida is
,erformatively undoin! the muthosKlo!os o,,osition or ?orkin! it as non:o,,osition into a mi;ed
discourse ?here muthos and lo!os, literature and ,hiloso,hy do not find themselves in conflict,
?here the ,lay of !enre ,lays itself not out of the ,hiloso,her0s hands but into those of the reader)
Simultaneously, ,erha,s, ?e find a Derrida hintin! hereAin the final cha,ter of his 0entire
history0Athat the lo!ocentric e,och of ,hiloso,hy is itself a fiction, a Rousseauian dream) =iven
that Derrida ?ill later say 0?e should no lon!er let ourselves be taken in by the some?hat trivial
o,,osition bet?een s,eech and ?ritin!0 8& ?e mi!ht think of ,hiloso,hy as trivialised by the act of
readin! s,eechK?ritin! into the heart of its enter,rise and ?onder ?ho ?as so taken in by this
o,,osition in the first ,laceAcertainly not a #lato, nor any tradition ?hich follo?ed him) -e mi!ht
,onder these matters ?hile reco!nisin! that Derrida0s essay restores a certain ,oetry to
,hiloso,hy but does not do so as ,hiloso,hy) >o more than readin! here becomes ?ritin! at any
e;,ense of an author called #lato)
Readin! And 5Self:6 -ritin!
9arold Bloom claims that all readin! is 0defensive ?arfare0, and ?hatever validity this statement
,ossesses in !eneral, it ?ould certainly serve as an accurate descri,tion of the deconstruction of
lo!ocentrism) 8* -hat deconstructive o,,osition to the author reveals as it conceals, in its double
fi!ure of conflict and com,licity, is that ,rimarily Derrida0s ?ork is revisionist, and like all
revisionism, its hi!hest stake is that of markin! some advance u,on the revised te;t) And the
distance to be markedAas Derrida sometimes concedesAis often all but im,erce,tible,
re!ardless of ?hether deconstruction is readin! the te;ts of meta,hysicians or counter:
meta,hysicians) -ith 9e!el, for Derrida the most ty,ical of meta,hysicians, it can nonetheless be
said that the thou!ht of diffLrance ?orks an 0infinitesimal and radical dis,lacement0 on the
9e!elian difference)81 Similarly, but from the other direction, Derrida0s rereadin! of 9eide!!er is
at once a radicalisation and a scarcely audible refinement of ontolo!ical difference, movin!
beyond 9eide!!erian 5and 9e!elian6 difference only by a hair0s breadth, the ineffable 0a0 of
diffLrance) And the same a!ain is true of the Freudian and .evinasian notions of the trace,82 of
#lato0s ,harmakon and Rousseau0s su,,lement) All Derrida0s readin!s of the &84+s reflect this
basic ,rinci,le$ that the deconstructive and deconstructed te;ts ?ill find themselvesAlike
diffLrance and 9e!elian differenceAat 0a ,oint of almost absolute ,ro;imity0)83
-hat distin!uishes Derridean revisionism from any other, ho?ever, is that this ,ro;imity is not
necessarily the outcome of a continuity bet?een Derrida0s 0ideas0 5if indeed there are such thin!s6,
and those of the authors he reads, but that it arises rather from a uni@ue a,,roach to the act of
,hiloso,hisin!) 'f Derrida is to be remembered as a !reat ,hiloso,her, it ?ill be as the individual
in ?homAfor the first timeAthe ,hiloso,her becomes e;clusively a reader:critic) All ,hiloso,hy
be!ins ?ith the readin! of ,hiloso,hy, most ,hiloso,hers take the ?ork of another ,hiloso,her
and be!in their careers ?ith a criti@ue of that ?ork even if it is not e;,licitly ,roffered in this form)
Eet, ?ith Derrida, the task of ,hiloso,hy is an interminable rereadin! in the closest ,ossible
manner, a constant ?orkin! into the already:?ritten) "nlike the ,hiloso,hers he deconstructs,
Derrida never elects to reach that sta!e ?hen his te;ts discuss ,roblematics on their o?n terms,
but rather must formulate, interro!ate, and deconstruct those ,roblematics throu!h other eyes,
hear their resonances ?ith another ear) ven the essay 0DiffLrance0, ?hich a,,ears to be offered
u, ?ithout anchors, finally issues as a readin! of 9eide!!er, !rounded in a number of
subordinate readin!s 5that of Saussure most notably6) 84 'ndeed, Derrida has himself said that
his ?ork is 0entirely consumed in the readin! of other te;ts0, and the ?ord 0consumed0 should be
!iven its full em,hasis here, for no other ,hiloso,her, or critic even, has ever buried his ?ork so
dee,ly in the resources, conce,tuality, and lan!ua!e of the te;ts he reads)8/ 'n borin! so far
?ithin, in takin! u, so fully the terms, strate!ies and a,orias of the authors ?ith ?hom he
contends, in refusin! to brin! e;ternal criteria to bear, in res,ectin! 0as ri!orously as ,ossible the
internal, re!ulated ,lay of ,hiloso,hemes0,8( all in all, throu!h the thorou!hly em,athetic @uality
of his deconstructions, the Derridean te;t is al?ays at risk of disa,,earance into the ?orld of the
other)
<,enin! 0Co!ito and the 9istory of %adness0, Derrida ?rites$ 0The disci,le must break the !lass,
or better the mirror, the reflection, his infinite s,eculation on the master) And start to s,eak)088
But this, to 0start to s,eak0, ?ith a voice of his o?n, is ?hat Derrida never doesG and as a failure
?hich arises directly out of the stren!th of his readin!) Rather his te;t liaises, s,eaks in ton!ues,
folds over the voices of critic and author like the fi!ures of a fu!ue, at times ventrilo@uisin!, at
others mimin! the voice of the author it reads, ?hether this takes the form of a thorou!hly
9usserlian refutation of 9usserl, a su,ra:9eide!!erian 9eide!!erianism, or #lato0s
deconstructive dialo!ue ?ith himself in the ,harmacy)&++ For deconstruction, as criticism, never
s,eaks in ,ro,ria ,ersona, but only ?ith a voice borro?ed from the author) <r, ,ut differently,
finds its o?n voice in the hollo? of an <ther0s)
After the arduous, and e;haustive ,hiloso,hical readin!s of the &84+s, Derrida0s ?ork took a
distinct turn, not a break in his thou!ht such as that ?hich se,arates, say, the early from the later
-itt!enstein, but a chan!e in mood, a,,roach, outlook and style) 9is readin! becomes less
in?ard, delvin!, and is ha,,y to ,lay around the frin!es of the te;t, to !lance off its surfaces) 9e
becomes ,reoccu,ied ?ith the @uestion of si!natures)&+& The ,hiloso,her of lan!ua!e ?ho had
said that the 0names of authors ) ) ) have here no substantial value0 ?as to ,en some of the most
beautiful ?ords ever ?ritten on authorshi,, bio!ra,hy, life, its loss and le!acy$ 0A man0s life,
uni@ue as his death, ?ill al?ays be more than a ,aradi!m and somethin! other than a symbol)
And this is ,recisely ?hat a ,ro,er name should al?ays name)0 &+* 9e also devotes himself
obsessively to auto!ra,hy, to the ,ara,h, the si!net and seal) =las is concerned ?ith 9e!el
5ea!leKai!le6 and =enet 5flo?ersK!enista6, Dissemination ?ith Sollers 5sunKsoleil6, Si!ns,on!e
?ith #on!e 5s,on!eKL,on!e6)&+1 9e ,resents a lecture entitled 0<tobio!ra,hies$ >ietFsche and
the #olitics of the #ro,er >ame0, and in the midst of the most e;orbitantly auteurist readin! in the
recent history of criticism, The #ost Card announces its thesis that ,sychoanalysis is the science
of Freud0s ,ro,er name)&+2 'n these te;ts, he ,ro,oses inter,retations of >ietFsche and Freud in
terms of the inter,enetration of ?ork and life, and calls for deconstruction to take itself to the
eni!matic line bet?een these cor,ora)&+3 9avin! asked, in 0Freud and the Scene of -ritin!0,
0?hat is the scene of ?ritin!70, he ans?ers a decade later that it is si!ned, sealed and delivered
as the scene of autobio!ra,hy, of desire, of the subject) -ithout sayin! so, Derrida ?as to revisit
his readin! of #lato in a finely su!!estive analysis of the 0destinational structure0 of the
>ietFschean discourse) Derrida ar!ues that an absolute falsification of >ietFsche0s te;tAor any
otherAis not ,ossible$ at some level and to some e;tent, >ietFsche0s discourse itself cannot be
distanced from the monstrous a,,ro,riations made of it by the ,ro,a!andists of >ational
Socialism) 9avin! demonstrated that >ietFsche did little ?ithin his te;ts to discoura!e aberrant
readin!s, Derrida searches for the ,rinci,les of readin! and ?ritin! ?hich !ave rise to an
a,,ro,riation that >ietFsche himself ?ould surely have discountenanced in the stron!est terms)
0<ne can ima!ine the follo?in! objection,0 Derrida says$
CarefulT >ietFsche0s utterances are not the same as those of the >aFi ideolo!ues, and not only
because the latter !rossly caricaturiFe the former to the ,oint of a,ishness) 'f one does more than
e;tract certain short se@uences, if one reconstitutes the entire synta; of the system ?ith the
subtle refinement of its articulations and its ,arado;ical reversals, et cetera, then one ?ill clearly
see that ?hat ,asses else?here for the 0same0 utterance says e;actly the o,,osite and
corres,onds instead to the inverse, to the reactive inversion of the very thin! it mimes) Eet it
?ould still be necessary to account for the ,ossibility of this mimetic inversion and ,erversion) 'f
one refuses the distinction bet?een unconscious and deliberate ,ro!rams as an absolute
criterion, if one no lon!er considers only
intentA?hether conscious or notA?hen readin! a te;t, then the la? that makes the ,ervertin!
sim,lification ,ossible must lie in the structure of the te;t 0remainin!0 ) ) ) &+4
To such lucidity ?e can have little to add e;ce,t by ?ay of notin! that ?e are here at ,recisely the
o,enin! of the #latonic interro!ation of ?ritten discourse, of #lato0s objections to ?ritin!0s
unauthorised dissemination, its vulnerability to serious or sava!e misa,,ro,riations)&+/ -e are
also confronted, once a!ain, ?ith the baro@ue fi!ure ?hereby the most tellin! insi!hts on
authorial res,onsibility issue from authorshi,0s hollo?)
This movement in turn communicates ?ith Derrida0s increasin!ly e;,licit investment in his o?n
te;ts) 9e devises manifold ?ays of encry,tin! his name in the te;ts he ?rites) 'n =las he inserts
fra!ments from his o?n bio!ra,hy bet?een the columnsG The #ost Card tenders a cautiously
autobio!ra,hical 0satire of e,istolary literature0)&+( 'ndeed, in these te;ts, Derrida seems to hold
himself at the limit of criticism and the o,enin! of literature) =las, in ,articular, dis,lays a
scintillatin! inventiveness ?ith lan!ua!e, but everythin! must be overlaid u,on, or realised
throu!h, 9e!el and =enet) As Derrida0s commentators are fond of sayin!, this is a tactic ?hich
,revents any one authorial voice from !ainin! control, as indeed it is)&+8 But does it not also,
simultaneously, indicate a reticence about takin! control, about riskin! the ,ro,er name7 The
need to a,,roach literature throu!h criticism, ?ritin! throu!h readin!7 'n an intervie? ?ith 'rme
SalusinsFky, Derrida intimates$
since '0ve al?ays been interested in literatureAmy dee,est desire bein! to ?rite literature, to ?rite
fictionsA'0ve the feelin! that ,hiloso,hy has been a detour for me to come back to literature)
#erha,s '0ll never reach this ,oint, but that ?as my desire even ?hen ' ?as very youn!) So, the
,roblematics of ?ritin!, the ,hiloso,hical ,roblematics of ?ritin!, ?as a detour to ask the
@uestion, 0-hat is literature70 But even this @uestionA0-hat is literature70A?as a mediation
to?ards ?ritin! literature ) ) ) And then ' had the feelin! that ' could ?rite differently) -hich ' did,
to some e;tent, in ?ritin! =las or .a Carte #ostale) But ri!ht no? ' have the feelin! that '0m
al?ays in that ,reliminary sta!e or moment, and ' ?ould like to ?rite differently a!ain) Differently$
that ?ould mean in a more fictional, and a more 5so to s,eak, in @uotation marks, many @uotation
marks6 0autobio!ra,hical0 ?ay)&&+
Are ?e then to see Derrida as Foucault sa? Barthes$ 0' do believe that in his eyes, his critical
?orks, his essays, ?ere the ,reliminary sketches of somethin! ?hich ?ould have been very
im,ortant and interestin!)07&&& "nlike Barthes and Foucault, Derrida0s majestic canon is not yet
closed, and ?e have no ?ay of kno?in! if he ?ill ever ,ass beyond this 0,reliminary sta!e0) But
mi!ht not the desire to do so be inter,reted as the search for a voice, for a form of
e;,ressiveness no lon!er tied to the ,ro!rammatics of readin!, and those of readin! over the
author0s shoulder7 'n other ?ords, is it, strictly s,eakin!, im,ossible to read The #ost Card
literally ?hen it declares to its anonymous addressee$ 0' have never had anythin! to ?rite) Eou are
the only one to understand ?hy it really ?as necessary that ' ?rite e;actly the o,,osite, as
concerns a;iomatics, of ?hat ' kno? my desire to be, in other ?ords you$ livin! s,eech, ,resence
itself7 &&* <r to hear a lament in the o,enin! ?ords of %Lmoires$ 0' have never kno?n ho? to tell
a story07
Conclusion$ Critic and Author
?hen ?hat has been re,ressed returns, it emer!es from the re,ressin! force itself ) ) )
Si!mund Freud &
.ike the ,oets ?hom #lato ?ished to remove from the ideal city, the author lives on ?ithin and
?ithout theory)* The death of the author emer!es as a blind:s,ot in the ?ork of Barthes, Foucault
and Derrida, an absence they seek to create and e;,lore, but one ?hich is al?ays already filled
?ith the idea of the author) A massive disjunction o,ens u, bet?een the theoretical statement of
authorial disa,,earance and the ,roject of readin! ?ithout the author) -hat their te;ts say about
the author, and ?hat they do ?ith the author issue at such an e;,ress level of contradiction that
the ,erformative as,ects utterly over?helm the declaration of authorial disa,,earance)
very?here, under the aus,ices of its absence, the conce,t of the author remains active, the
notion of the return of the author bein! sim,ly a belated reco!nition of this critical blindness) A
similar ,attern of inscri,tion under erasure could be assiduously traced in other deauthorism!
te;ts) The ?ork of .acan is entirely or!anised around the eni!ma of subjectivity even as the
subject is declared absentG #aul de %an0s Alle!ories of Readin! harbours a massively inscribed
Rousseauian subject @uite a!ainst its stated anti:authorialism)1 'n te;ts ?hich had someho?
,assed beyond the author, the death of the author ?ould not be at issue) Direct resistance to the
author demonstrates little so much as the resistance of the author)
't may ?ell be that the @uestion of the author is not a s,ecial case in this re!ard) very theory ?ill
be haunted to some e;tent by that ?hich it seeks to methodolo!ically e;clude)2 The @uestion of
history ?ill al?ays e;ert si!nal stresses on any formalismG all historicisms ?ill eventually have to
confront the ,roblem of form) 9o?ever, ?hat distin!uishes the death of the author as a
,articularly acute form of critical blindness is that the ar!uments ,ro,osed for the eradication of
the author often have very little bearin! on the ,roblem of authorshi, ,er se) So much in
deauthorisin! discourse takes ,lace at a remove, the death or disa,,earance of the author
findin! its justification only in the manner of an e,i,henomenal conse@uence of other e,ochal
0events0) 'f, so the 0ar!ument0 runs, ?e are ?itnessin! the deaths of =od, %an, re,resentation,
meta,hysics, the book, bour!eois humanism, then the death of the author ?ill necessarily follo?
as an inevitable result of these closures) verythin! ,roceeds as thou!h the author ?as sim,ly
identifiable ?ith =od, %an and so on, as thou!h authorshi, can only be conceived on a ,lane of
meta,hysical and idealist abstraction, as if these closures are in ,rocess of occurrin!, and as if
?e can clear the horiFons of -estern kno?led!e in one concerted movement of thou!ht)
ven ?hen the @uestion of the author is addressed some?hat more directly, ?hen s,ecific
contentions are tendered as to ?hy ?e should no lon!er re!ard the author as a relevant cate!ory
of modern thou!ht, anti:authorial ,ositions founder on un?arrantable su,,ositions and false
antinomies) As often as not, the conce,tual net?ork ,ro,osed in the stead of auteurist criticism
serves to rea?aken the very cate!ories it ?ould vitiate) 'nterte;tuality, for e;am,le, as it has been
formulated and ,ut into ,ractice, returns @uite com,liantly to notions of influence and revision)
The field of interte;tuality is not !eneralised and unfurro?ed$ it e;ists by virtue of constellations,
overla,, relays) >ietFsche never read Bierke!aard, and it ?ould doubtless be ,ossible to read
him as thou!h he had, but immeasurably stron!er interte;tual currents o,en u, bet?een
Scho,enhauer and >ietFsche, >ietFsche and 9eide!!er, ,recisely because there is influence,
continuity, succession, recession and revision, ?ithal, an act of stron! readin! bet?een their
?ork)
-ithin the archaeolo!ical version of interte;tuality, as ?e have seen, the artificial distance
bet?een author and e,isteme cannot lon! be sustained) 't is not enou!h to read Scho,enhauer
on the ?ill as no more than e,istemically coincident ?ith >ietFsche on the ?ill, thus discountin!
>ietFsche0s readin! of Scho,enhauer, his debate and dialo!ue ?ith The -orld as -ill and
Re,resentation, any more than it ?ould be sufficient to see >ietFsche0s doctrine of the ?ill solely
in terms of the Scho,enhauerian influence, and in hermetic inde,endence of historical and
e,istemic conte;ts) At a broader level of inter,retation, the insi!hts of archaeolo!y cannot but
rejoin those ?hich they set out to su,,lant) ven ?hilst ?e acce,t the hardest deterministic
ar!uments of archaeolo!y, that individual discourses are ,urely the ,roduct of anonymous
e,istemic forces, nothin! ?ithin archaeolo!y can outla? the subse@uent influence of the
discourses thus constituted) Should it be that the Bantian discourse is sim,ly an e,istemic event
,erchance articulated throu!h a ,articular BZni!sber!ian citiFen, ?e are still forth?ith left ?ith the
@uestion of the Bantian influence over modern ,hiloso,hy, ?ith the ,roblem that the Bantian
discourse ?as constituted in such a ,rofound and inau!ural fashion that the thou!ht of t?o
centuries has discovered so many of its most si!nificant directions, and ,oints of de,arture from
that discourse) This influence, ho?ever it may have ori!inally been ?rou!ht, remains as
somethin! to be assessed, considered, e;,lained)
'n many res,ects, it matters little ?hat s,ecies of determinism is used to ar!ue the death of the
author) -hether ?e see the subject as constituted in and throu!h lan!ua!e, history or e,isteme,
the ,ostulation of a ,rior constitutive cause does not deny the constituted entity its e;istence, nor
does it ,revent that entity in turn causin! somethin! else) Doyce is not the father of lo!os, but this
does not mean that in Finne!ans -ake, he did not reconfi!ure lan!ua!e in a te;tual construct
?ithout ,recedent in the history of ?ritin!) >aturally, ?e must a!ree ?ith Barthes, .acan, and
others, that no subjectivity ,recedes a lan!ua!e that has evolved for millennia before the subject
utters its first inchoate ?ords, but this in no ?ay im,edes the ability of an author to ?orkAlike the
lo!otheteAinnovatively ?ith and ?ithin lan!ua!e)
The blindness of all determinist models of the literary te;t is that they esche? any ,ossibility of
com,atibilism, that they refuse the continuation of the causal chain beyond the !round
,rescribed) <nce somethin! is identified as an effect of lan!ua!e, the e,isteme, or ?hatever, the
,ossibility of that effect becomin! a cause at a later sta!e of develo,ment, of its en!enderin!
si!nificant events in its train is abjured, even to the ,oint of callin! into @uestion the very
e;istence of that effect on the !round that is an effect) Eet ?hilst subjectivity is the outcome, the
effect of the im,ersonal <ther 5in any of its ,oststructural forms6, it still remains as subjectivity, as
somethin! to be located and s,ecified) >or is there indeed any reason ?hy the subjectivity thus
constituted need be uniform or ,urely functional) 'f the author is the site of a collision bet?een
lan!ua!e, culture, class, history, e,isteme, there is still every reason to assume that the resultant
subject should be constructed in each case differently, the ,syche thus for!ed bein! irreducible to
any one of those forces in ,articular) Short of takin! this line of reasonin! to the ludicrous
e;treme of assertin! that subjects are constituted homo!eneously, the difference bet?een
subjects remains to be e;,lained) <f course all such deterministic ar!uments re,resent an
attem,t by critical theorists to ,romote authorial absence as an inherent ,ro,erty of discourse
rather than as merely one a,,roach amon!st others to the ,roblems of readin! and
inter,retation) The !eneral aim of e;treme anti:authorial discourses is to sho? ho? the absence
of the author can be u,held not only as a sti,ulation but also as a descri,tive definition of the
discursive field) %uch confusion, in fact, arises from the ne!lect of this distinction, from
confoundin! the death of the author as a s,eculative e;,erimental a,,roach to discourse ?ith
authorial absence as the truth of ?ritin! itself) T?o statements dra?n from Barthes serve a,tly to
illustrate this difference$
-e must ) ) ) decide to rearran!e the objects of literary science) The author and the ?ork are
only the startin!:,oints of an analysis ?hose horiFon is a lan!ua!e$ there cannot be a science of
Dante, Shakes,eare or Racine but only a science of discourses) 3
Flaubert ) ) ) achieves a salutary discomfort of ?ritin!$ he does not sto, the ,lay of codes 5or
sto,s it only ,artially6, so that 5and this is indubitably the ,roof of ?ritin!6 one never kno?s if he is
res,onsible for ?hat he ?rites 5if there is a subject behind his lan!ua!e6G for the very bein! of
?ritin! 5the meanin! of the labor that constitutes it6 is to kee, the @uestion -ho is s,eakin!7 from
ever bein! ans?ered)4
The first statement is ad hoc, heuristic) =iven that ?e ?ish to found a science of literature, and
!iven that the institution of such a science is feasible and desirable, then ?e shall be com,elled
to ,ut the @uestion of authorial involvement ?ithin ,arentheses) 'n the manner of classical
science, ?e ?ill circumscribe and delimit the field, reduce it to mana!eable ,ro,ortions, thereby
o,enin! our analyses only to those objects ?hich admit of scientific descri,tion) 9avin! thus
established our object, and the ran!e of our investi!ations, ?e ?ill have nothin! to say about
?hat lies outside the scientific domain, ?hether it e;ists or does not e;ist, ?hat ,ro,erties or
@ualities the e;cluded ,henomena may or not ,ossess) The second statement is of a com,letely
different order) The death or disa,,earance of the author is no lon!er a ,oint of method but the
,roof of ?ritin!, its revealed truth, a matter of co!nitive certitude rather than a strate!ic
hy,othesis)
The death of the author o,erates in the hiatus bet?een these t?o statements, its !oal bein! to
brid!e the distance bet?een the methodolo!ical and ontolo!ical @uestions of authorial
disa,,earance) Eet faced ?ith this challen!e, ,ro,onents of the death of the author have done
little but blur the distinction alto!ether) The critic ?ill say that ?e mi!ht ,roductively e;,lore the
o,enin!s made by removin! the author, and this ,ro,osition ?ill slideAover a certain distanceA
into the claim that the te;t demands to be read ?ithout an author) 'n an interestin! reversal of the
old fallacy, critics move from the de jure to the de facto, from a ,oint of ,rinci,le to a ,oint of fact)
Thus Barthes ?ill su!!est that ?e bracket the @uestion of the author a?hile, and shall then say
that ?ritin! is in essence the 0s,ace ?here our subject sli,s a?ay, the ne!ative ?here all identity
is lost0) / Foucault ?ill ,rovisionally recommend an anonymous history of discourse by ?ay of an
alternative to ,ositivist history, only then to announceAin medias resAthat anonymity is the
,ro,er essence of discourse and its history)
Anti:authorialism thus be!ins in the manner of a scientific reduction and reemer!es as the end to
?hich it ,ur,orted to be the means) The death of the author 0,roves0 the death of the author$
subjectivity is ,ut to one side, therefore subjectivity does not e;ist) -hat such circular 0ar!uments0
themselves confirm is that their are no 0,roofs0 of ?ritin! ?hich necessitate authorial
disa,,earance) The decision as to ?hether ?e read a te;t ?ith or ?ithout an author remains an
act of critical choice !overned by the ,rotocols of a certain ?ay of readin! rather than any 0truth of
?ritin!0) -hich is to say that authorial absence can never be a co!nitive statement about literature
and discourse in !eneral, but only an intra:critical statement and one ?hich has little to say about
authors themselves e;ce,t in so far as the idea of authorshi, reflects on the activity and status of
the critic)
Critic And Author7
The Eale critic, and ,oet man@uL , 9arold Bloom, has devoted a career to the develo,ment of a
theory of the ,oetic an;iety of influence)( very ,oet of the ,ost:%iltonic era, he contends, be!ins
his ,oetic life in dread of havin! nothin! to say) Confronted by the !rand and o,,ressive tradition,
the ne?comer senses his harro?in! belatedness before the enormous ?ei!ht of the already:
?ritten) 'n an attem,t to discover a ,oetic voice, the ne?comer or e,hebe cathects onto the ?ork
of a !reat ,recursor, andA?hether consciously or notAbe!ins ,roducin! imitations of the
,redecessor0s ?ork) A scene of instruction is under?ay ?hich ?ill remain ?ith the e,hebe
throu!hout his ,oetic life, one ?hich at various sta!es the e,hebe ?ill attem,t to break free of,
seekin! here to ?ithdra? entirely from the ,recursor0s ?ork, there to discover ?ays in ?hich this
?ork mi!ht be continued in an ori!inal or deviant manner) Cau!ht ?ithin an essentially <edi,al,
,sycho,oetic ,attern of enthralment and dene!ation, affirmation and denial, the e,hebe ?ill at
some sta!e attem,t the symbolic, ritual slayin! of the Father in an attem,t to carve out a s,ace of
authentic self:e;,ression) But as ?ith all !estures of this kind, the rejection of the ,recursor
serves only to reconfirm the influence of the ,recursor) The only outroute for the e,hebe is to
reach a sta!e of ,oetic maturity in ?hich the influence of the ,oetic father can be harnessed and
mastered throu!h the re?ritin! of the ,rimal ?ork in such a ,o?erfully revisionist fashion that it
comes to seem the e,hebe0s o?n) Thereafter, and only thereafter, the a!on abates, the
ne?comer becomes a ,oet in his o?n ri!ht, a stron! ,oet)
't is not difficult to see ho? Bloom0s theory ma,s every bit as comfortablyAif not more soAonto
the relationshi, bet?een critic and author such as it has been ,layed out in recent times) -e
have seen that the death of the author is ,romul!ated in a!onistic terms, in the form of
usur,ation, as ?e have seen also that it is inse,arable from a stron! act of re?ritin! by all these
critics$ Barthes re?ritin! BalFac, Foucault makin! literally ?hat he ?ill of four hundred years of
,hiloso,hical thou!ht, Derrida re?ritin! Rousseau) The seiFure, from the author, of the ri!ht to
,roduce the te;t is the motivatin! thrust behind all these e;tir,ations) Eet in all these casesAthat
of Barthes in SKN most immediatelyAonce the act of re?ritin! has been achieved, the desire to
eradicate the authorial subject recedes, the author is returned) So far from consolidatin! anti:
authorialism, this re?ritin! leads in its turn to a certain distancin! of these critics from the critical
field itself) Barthes more or less abandons readin! to ,roduce his o?n forms of autobio!ra,hical
fictions, Derrida de,arts from ,hiloso,hical criticism to interscribe autobio!ra,hy ?ith Doycean
ta,estries on ?riters such as 9e!el, =enet, #on!e) 9avin! re?ritten the canonical te;t, the critic
!oes on to ,roduce te;ts of his o?n)
This develo,ment from stron! reader to re?riter to ?riter has led many ,oststructuralists to
su!!est that criticism itself has become a ,rimary discourse) And this notion commands a certain
res,ect, for the ?eakenin! of the boundaries bet?een creative and critical is not only a
develo,ment ?ithin criticism, but also a ,o?erful and necessary e;tension of modernism in
!eneral) As the literary te;t becomes more self:refle;ive, as its artifices and narratolo!ical
structures come to dominate the fore!round, as the ?ork of fiction becomes autocritical,
autodeconstructive even, it is entirely concinnous that the critical te;t should become increasin!ly
creative, inter,retable, and like the ?ork of -ilde and %allarmL, a realm ?ith charms, maFes, and
mysteries of its o?n) 8 9o?ever, ?hat has o,ened u, as the s,ace of a ,ossible conver!ence
bet?een literature and the most innovative forms of literary criticism has been ,ushed to the limit
by some theorists ?ho see, in Derrida0s ?ork es,ecially, evidence that criticism, ?hatever its cast
or @uality, can be no lon!er demarcated from ,rimary discourses, that it can no lon!er be
constrained ?ithin a ,assive, handmaidenly ca,acity, that source and commentary, ori!in and
su,,lement, traverse the discursive field on an e@ual footin!) The boundary is no lon!er
o,erativeG the secondary becomes ,rimary, the su,,lement is at the ori!inG criticism finds itself
?ithin literature)
Eet, ?hilst ackno?led!in! the force and enticements of such an idea, ?hen turned a!ainst the
author this line of ar!ument becomes entirely self:defeatin!) Barthes, Foucault and Derrida have
not ,roblematised the distinction bet?een ,rimary and secondary discourses by diminishin! the
,rimary te;t to a state of servile de,endence) Ruite the contrary) 'f anythin!, their readin!s
restore to us the adventure of readin! these source te;ts) Barthes on Sade, Derrida on 9usserl,
o,en and revivify the te;t, uncover layers of si!nificance, dra? forth ,ossibilities of readin! and
rereadin! that a more humble criticism ?ould surely by,ass) But more im,ortantly still, in this
conte;t, it is only by elevatin! their o?n ?ork to a ,itch of creativity ?ith lan!ua!e that they
resistedAand continue to resistAdomestication as secondary ?riters) They created oeuvres of
!reat resonance, sco,e and variety) They became more than critics$ a vast body of secondary
literature has !ro?n u, around their ?ork, one ?hich !enerally has sou!ht not to contest or
deconstruct ?hat they say, but rather has re:enacted ,recisely the ,redominance of source over
su,,lement, master over disci,le, ,rimary over secondary) They have been accorded all the
,rivile!es traditionally besto?ed u,on the !reat author) >o contem,orary author can lay claim to
anythin! a,,roachin! the authority that their te;ts have enjoyed over the critical establishment in
the last t?enty years or so) 'ndeed, ?ere ?e in search of the most fla!rant abuses of critical
auteurism in recent times then ?e need look no further than the secondary literature on Barthes,
Foucault and Derrida, ?hich is for the most ,art !iven over to scru,ulously faithful and almost
timorous reconstitutions of their thou!ht) &+
ven such a stron!:minded critic as =eoffrey 9artman is ,rey to this tendency, and in the course
of critical discussions ?herein he seeks to challen!e the ,rimacy of the creative over the critical
te;t) 'n many of his te;tsA0.iterary Commentary as .iterature0 in ,articularA9artman takes =las
as an e;em,lary te;t in the dissolution of the distinction bet?een literature and criticism) && From
the outset therefore, 9artman0s case is sus,ect, for no ?ork could be less ty,ical of criticism
either at its best, ?orst, or most journeyman) 9artman then ,roceeds to ar!ue as thou!h this
monumental, a!eneric and thorou!hly maverick te;t im,orts criticism:in:!eneral into the ,rimary
s,here) And he does so by means of a ,olemic ?hose terms are unremittin!ly a;iolo!ical, that is,
hierarchical) =las, for 9artman, is ,lainly too creative, too labyrinthine, too !ood to be a distant
cousin of literature, so much so that he ,redicts for it a destiny com,arable only to Finne!ans
-ake)&* Derrida0s te;t, in short, ,ossesses all the attributes by ?hich ?e have conventionally
reco!nised the !reat literary ?ork) 'n his fervour to dissolve the distinction bet?een ,rimary and
secondary, 9artman ,lays s@uarely back into its clutches) By ?ritin! so sensitively, so ?ell, so
e;,licatively about =las, he makes of it a canonical te;t but only at the ,rice of declarin! his o?n
?ork secondary, ,arasitic, s,onsorial) 9artman0s ,osition thus leads in one of t?o ,arallel
directions) ither ?e acce,t that Derrida0s ?ork has left the homelands of criticism, has ,assed
over into literatureAas 9artman contends, he s,eaks even of 0crossin! the line0&1Aor ?e evolve
a tri,artite distinction bet?een authors, ,rimary critics, and deuterocritics) 'n other ?ords, ?e ask$
is the <verreader an author7 'f ?e ans?er in the affirmative, ?e maintain the distinction bet?een
the ,rimary and the secondary via admittin! the elect amon!st the latter into the former$ if in the
ne!ative, then ?e are faced ?ith a certain refinement in our classifications or ?ith the
construction of a !radient of creativity ?ithin criticism) 'n all events, this is not an ar!umentAnor
even the !host of oneAfor the death of the author)
-hether Derrida, Foucault and Barthes are authors is ,rohibitively difficult to determine and, in
many res,ects, beside the ,oint) Certainly, they ?ould seem to be neither authors nor readers in
any stable sense, in so far as ?e mi!ht say that their ?ork ,asses bet?een these cate!ories at
different sta!es of develo,ment) A .over0s Discourse and Camera .ucida are undoubtedly ?orks
of an author, <n Racine, a critical te;t ?ritten by a critic) Derrida, introducin! 9usserl0s <ri!in of
=eometry, or readin! dmund DabQs&2 is functionin! as a critic, ?hilst ?ritin! =las he ,lays the
roles of critic and author simultaneously) Foucault, ,romotin! the ?ork of the Surrealist author,
Raymond Roussel, is @uite consciously and deliberately ?ritin! in the service of his chosen
author,&3 thou!h ?hen criticisin! the vast matri; of ,o?er systems, his ?ork de,arts entirely from
criticism understood as an intersubjective ,rocess) There ?ould seem no ?ay of doin! justice to
the life0s ?ork of these three ?riters via either term) Critic or author7 Critic and author7 't mi!ht be
necessary to arrive at a ne? ?riterly cate!ory, or to revive the notion of a classical ,eda!o!y in
order to ade@uately describe their situation) -hat is assured, thou!h, is that they did not force
this rethinkin! of the relationshi, bet?een critic and author throu!h declarin! the death of the
author) Rather, they have e;,anded and revised our notions of both criticism and authorshi, by
?ritin! their ?ay out of criticism in the only ?ay one can$ that is, to?ard authorshi,)
%isrece,tions$ #henomenolo!y 'nto Deconstruction
>aturally, the @uestion remains to be asked as to ?hy the death of the author should have
e;ercised an influence so far in advance of its articulation) 'ts a,,eal to a criticism ea!er to
elevate itself to a ,oint of ,arity ?ith ,rimary discourses is immediately a,,arent, but such an
e;,lanation falls short of accountin! for the ?ides,read im,act that radical anti:authorialism has
e;erted, ,articularly u,on the An!lo:American tradition) &4 'ndeed, the rece,tion of the death of
the author has been a ,rofoundly com,licated and confused affair) 'n America es,ecially, many
critics have res,onded to the death of the author in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida as thou!h it
?ere amon!st the most com,ellin! statements that their discourses have to offer, and the
,revailin! ?ei!ht of counterassertion has been all but i!nored) %oreover, as re,layed by
American critics, the death of the author has an unmistakably belated @uality, bein! evoked in the
manner of a distant event ?hose ori!inal im,ort and ener!y have been lost in transition) 'n this
received form, the death of the author has retained its characteristic hy,erbole ?ithout
reca,turin! the sense of e,ochal necessity ?hich motivated its initial formulations) The s,ecific
historical and ethnolo!ical circumstances in ?hich Barthes, Foucault and Derrida ,romul!ated
e;treme anti:subjectivism have not been taken into account, and the discourse of the death of the
author has been im,orted into the An!lo:Amenican critical ,ro!ramme ?ithout essential
modifications, ?ithout havin! been translated in the broader sense of that term) As such, the
death of the author has revealed itself as another casualty of the stammered and asymmetrical
e;chan!e bet?een continental and An!lo:American thou!ht)
The death of the authorAas ar!ued aboveAis inse,arable from the massive reaction in France
a!ainst the resuscitation of the Cartesian co!ito in 9usserlian ,henomenolo!y, it bein! only as a
,articularly vi!orous form of anti:,henomenolo!ism that French structuralism and
,oststructuralism can be ,ro,erly understood) 9o?ever, the situation in the An!lo:American
tradition durin! the &84+s could not have been more different) -hile Derrida, Foucault, .acan
and others sensed the e;haustion of ,henomenolo!ical cate!ories, and ?hilst Barthes ?as
ur!in! the necessity of breakin! the traditionally stron! institutional hold of the author in the
French academies, anti:subjectivism ?as some?hat etiolated in An!lo:American scholarshi, due
to the lon! ascendancy of the >e? Criticism) For the youn!er !eneration of critics ea!er to move
beyond the, by then, rather tired ideas of the intentional fallacy, the aesthetic monad, ?ords on
the ,a!e and so forth, ,henomenolo!y had a com,letely different as,ect$ e;otic, juvenescent,
systematically intentional and oeuvre:centred, it re,resented the most challen!in! outroute from
formalism) .ar!ely throu!h the mediative fi!ure of =eor!es #oulet, the avant:!arde at Eale ?as
introduced to a ,hiloso,hically based criticism of consciousness, centred u,on an all:inau!uratin!
authorial co!ito, a methodolo!y ?hich in the shar,est contradiction to >e? Critical objectivity,
chose to 0annihilate ) ) ) the objective contents of the ?ork, and to elevate itself to the
a,,rehension of a subjectivity ?ithout objectivity0) &/ >o?adays it mi!ht be difficult to ima!ine the
e;citin! ,romise of a ,henomenolo!ical criticism, but for a tradition ?hich had ?orked under the
influence of liotism for more than thirty years, it ?as received in the manner of a liberation)
"nder the tutela!e of #oulet, t?o of the most influential critics in the recent history of American
criticismA#aul de %an and D) 9illis %illerAbe!an the movement out of the formalist im,asse and
to?ard the a,,rehension of a transcendental subjectivity conceived, in #oulet0s ?ords, as ideally
0anterior and ,osterior to any object0)&(
#aul de %an, ?hose links ?ith continental ,hiloso,hy ?ere obviously ?ell develo,ed, devoted
much of his ?ork in the &84+s to ar!uin! a!ainst the >e? Criticism from a ,henomenolo!ical
,ers,ective) Chief amon!st de %an0s contentions are the ne!lect of the self in formalism and its
refusal to allo? for the determinin! role of intention in the literary act) The >e? Criticism only
succeeded in treatin! the ,oem @ua object throu!h rulin! intentionality out of court$ the 0,artial
failure of American formalism, ?hich has not ,roduced ?orks of major ma!nitude, is due to its
lack of a?areness of the intentional structure of literary form0)&8 For de %an, intentionality, like
subjectivity, is transcendental$ ,the conce,t of intentionality is neither ,hysical nor ,sycholo!ical
in its nature, but structural, involvin! the activity of a subject re!ardless of its em,irical concerns,
e;ce,t as far as they relate to the intentionality of the structure0) *+ 'n direct o,,osition to the >e?
Criticism, the intentionality of a transcendental consciousness is ,ro,osed as the @uestion of
literature) Throu!h establishin! the distinction bet?een an em,irical and an onto:lo!ical self,
,henomenolo!ical criticism, de %an claims, 0,artici,ates in some of the most audacious and
advanced forms of contem,orary thou!ht0)*& ven the formalist doctrine of im,ersonality is to be
read in ,henomenolo!ical terms as another e;,ression of this ,ur!in! from the self of all
em,irical content in the constitution of a ,urely ontolo!ical literary selfhood)**
The ,henomenolo!ical orientation of 9illis %iller0s ?ork durin! this ,eriod is no less e;,licit) <ver
the course of a fe? years, he shifted from fled!lin! >e? Critic to critic of consciousness, and
,roduced interestin! studies of Dickens and 9ardy in terms of the most thorou!h!oin!
transcendental auteurism) .iterature is defined as 0a form of consciousness, and literary criticism
is the analysis of this form in all its varieties)0*1 The role of the critic, %iller declared, is to
,enetrate the authorial co!ito as ,rofoundly as ,ossible, to mould his consciousness in the
likeness of that of the author) The 0!enius0 of the critic resides in the 0e;treme inner ,lasticity0
?hereby he can 0du,licate ?ithin himself the affective @uality of the mind of each of his
authors0)*2 The author, conceived as a 0naked ,resence of consciousness to itself, becomes the
0true be!innin! ) ) ) the !round or foundation of everythin! else0,*3 the critic a self:effacin! fi!ure
entirely in thrall to this ,rimary co!ito) Readin!, at its best, can as,ire to
!lim,se the ori!inal unity of a creative mind) For all the ?orks of a sin!le ?riter form a unity, a
unity in ?hich a thousand ,aths radiate from the same center) At the heart of a ?riter0s
successive ?orks, revealed in !lim,ses throu!h each event and ima!e, is an im,al,able
or!anisin! form, constantly ,residin! over the choice of ?ords)*4
-ithin American criticism, %iller0s ?ork seemed to re,resent the be!innin!s of a massive
u,heaval, the introduction of continental ,hiloso,hies of consciousness into a tradition ?hose
,hiloso,hy and criticism had never before seriously en!a!ed ?ith the idea of transcendental
subjectivity) %iller0s role in this movement ?as ambassadorial, seekin! at once to educate the
critical establishment as to ho? the ideas of ,henomenolo!y could be trans,osed onto the critical
,lane, and to ur!e a ne? rece,tivity of American thou!ht to continental influences) To this end,
%iller ,ublished an im,ortant essay in &844 entitled 0The =eneva School0, an accessible
introduction of the ideas of the uro,ean ,henomenolo!ists, ?hich ?as ea!erly in!ested by
critics seekin! to !ain an understandin! of continental ,hiloso,hy and its ,ertinence to the study
of literature) */ And, in the same yearA&844Athe o,enin! of channels of communication
bet?een continental and American thou!ht ?as marked by an event ?hose effects are still bein!
felt todayAthe Dohns 9o,kins sym,osium on 0The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of
%an0)*(
The event ?as ,lanned as an e;chan!e bet?een continental and American thou!ht, but the
influence ?as entirely one:?ay, as the vast ,re,onderance of French s,eakers itself testifies)
Furthermore, the An!lo:American critical scene ?as com,letely ill:e@ui,,ed for ?hat ?as in store,
for not only had French theory effectively ,assed over into a structuralist methodolo!y lar!ely
unkno?n outside uro,e, but certain of the ,artici,antsADerrida in ,articularA?ere taken u,
?ith the necessity of movin! beyond both ,henomenolo!y and structuralism) <f the very many
and startlin!ly varied ,a,ers delivered, it ?as Derrida0s 0Structure, Si!n, and #lay0 ?hich ?as
destined to have the !reatest im,act u,on subse@uent American theory)*8 'n his ,a,er, Derrida
mana!ed, ?ith an incom,arable deftness, to unsettle the conce,t of centre both as it o,erated as
the anonymous mainstay of structural analyses, and as it a,,ears in the form of an all:or!anisin!
,henomenolo!ical co!ito) To a critic such as %iller, the t?in themes of decentrin! and
inter,retative freedom ?hich 0Structure, Si!n and #lay0 ar!ued must have seemed an uncannily
,rescient deconstruction of the tenets of authorial centre, and absolute critical fidelity to the co!ito
u,on ?hich his ?ork ?as consolidated) Conse@uently, as American criticism ?as takin! its first
uncertain ste,s to?ard com,rehendin! a recently arrived ,henomenolo!ical criticism, it ?as
,resented ?ith the most ,o?erful, ?ell:informed and technically intimidatin! criti@ue of 9usserlian
,henomenolo!y and the structural anthro,olo!y of .Lvi:Strauss) The challen!e ?ith ?hich
Derrida confronted the American avant:!arde ?as to think throu!h and beyond a
,henomenolo!ical methodolo!y ?hich had not yet been ,ro,erly assimilated or understood, and
to do so not in the interests of ,assin! into structural analyses, but in ,ursuit of that criti@ue of
meta,hysical conce,tuality kno?n to us no? as deconstruction)
The effect of Derrida0s arrival ?as massive, devastatin! ?e mi!ht almost say) #aul de %an be!an
to re?rite his ,osition, claimin! that the #ouletian subjectivity he had ,reviously adhered to ?as
only, in reality, a meta,hor for lan!ua!e)1+ 'n 0The Rhetoric of Blindness0 he conducted a
rear!uard attack u,on Derrida0s readin! of Rousseau in terms of a transcendental conce,tion of
intentionality, an attack ho?ever ?hich confirmed little so much as the !ro?in! influence of
deconstruction u,on his criticism) 1& A fe? years later, de %an emer!ed as a frontline
deconstructionist, and be!an ?ork on a massive readin! of Rousseau accordin! to anti:
intentionalist strate!ies culled directly from the =rammatolo!y)1* For 9illis %iller, Derrida0s
influence ?as radical in the e;treme) 'n the s,ace of a fe? years, and in ?hat must a,,ear today
as a virtual alle!ory of the chan!in! li!hts of American criticism, he inverted his entire itinerary)
9e no? em,hasised a radical te;tuality ?here before he had insisted u,on the utmost fidelity to
the authorial co!ito) -here the author had functioned as an all:centrin! ,resence, he no? ,osited
a vast absence, a ,resence lost and retreatin! en ab[me) -here before he had declared the ideal
trans,arency of lan!ua!e to authorial intention, he no? denied the ability of mind to e;ercise any
authoritative control ?hatsoever over te;tual effectsG rather the critic ,uts 0the notions of mind and
of the self under the most em,hatic erasure, 0and sees them as lin!uistic fictions, as functions in a
system of ?ords ?ithout base in the lo!os of any substantial mind0)11 Absolute centre reverses
into absolute absence of centre$ the te;t is entirely !overned by centre$ or it is entirely
un!overned and un!overnable) The idea of the authorA?e note once a!ainAmust be that of
total centre or no idea at all)
-hat the alacrity and e;tremism of %iller0s reversal of ,ers,ective illustrate is ho? the ascri,tion
of total control to the authorial centre necessitates that any dis,lacement of the centre is
e;,erienced as total, infinitely abyssal) Such is the conse@uence of failin! to reco!nise that the
denial of an absolute authorial centre im,lies not the necessary absence of the author, but the
redistribution of authorial subjectivity ?ithin a te;tual mise en scQne ?hich it does not command
entirely) That deauthorisation and a vul!ar idea of decentrin! should have been taken u, so
enthusiastically by %iller, and the American deconstructionists !enerally, is the outcome of
es,ousin! an anti:,henomenolo!ical ,oststructuralism ?ithout ,ro,erly thinkin! throu!h
9usserlian ,henomenolo!y or structuralism) Decentrin! takes ,lace so joyously, so blithely
because the centre has not been fully com,rehended$ the unsettlin! of centre is misconstrued as
erasure rather than as dis,lacement and relocation) ;,lainin! his ,osition in the discussion
follo?in! 0Structure, Si!n and #lay0, Derrida insisted$ 0The subject is absolutely indis,ensable) '
don0t destroy the subjectG ' situate it ) ) ) ' believe that at a certain level both of e;,erience and of
,hiloso,hical and scientific discourse one cannot !et alon! ?ithout the notion of the subject) 't is
a @uestion of kno?in! ?here it comes from and ho? it functions0) 12 'ndeed, in the ,a,er itself
Derrida had said that deconstruction 0determines the non:center other?ise than as loss of the
center0)13 -hat is at issue, rather, is rethinkin! the @uestion of the subject outside the realm of a
transcendental ,henomenolo!y, of seein! the subject actively en!a!ed as one ,rinci,le amon!st
others in the evolution of discourse) As Derrida says, in a much mis:cited ,assa!e$ 0The 00subject00
of ?ritin! does not not e;ist if ?e mean by that some soverei!n solitude of the author) The subject
of ?ritin! is a system of relations bet?een strata$ the %ystic #ad, the ,syche, society, the ?orld)
-ithin that scene, on that sta!e, the ,unctual sim,licity of the classical subject is not to be
found0)14
-hat has occurred in the American rece,tion of Derrida0s thou!ht is that the deconstruction of the
ideal, e;tra?orldly self:,resence of the 9usserlian transcendental e!o has been hastily
misconceived as an attack u,on subjectivity in !eneral, and the subjectivity of the author in
,articular) Fra!ments of a s,ecifically directed, ri!orous, and hi!hly technical criti@ue have been
,ut to the service of a free,layin! literary criticism ea!er to sideline the @uestion of the author
rather than to debate and contest the issues it raises) The crossin! over, not only from one
intellectual culture, one 0re!ion of historicity0 to another, but also from one disci,line, one set of
critical ,roblematics to another, has been achieved only at the inevitable cost of distortion and
misa,,raisal)1/ Commentin! ,erce,tively u,on the ,reci,itous effects of Derrida0s arrival on the
An!lo:American critical forum, Christo,her >orris ?rites$
The result has been a kind of radical eu,horia, much like the conse@uence of readin! >ietFsche
before one !ot round to readin! either Bant or 9e!el) 't has also ,roduced a one:sided account of
Derrida0s te;ts ?hose ,artiality can best be sho?n u, by returnin! to those te;ts and readin!
them afresh ?ith a vie? to ?hat is often ,assed over on the standard 0deconstructionist0 vie?)
Then ) ) ) there emer!es the outline of a counter:inter,retation more ri!orous in its 0,hiloso,hic0
bearin! and far less amenable to the ,ur,oses of strai!htfor?ard literary:critical use)1(
And in trans,osin! the Derridean criti@ue of ,hiloso,hical conce,tuality onto the literary:critical
,lane, the eu,horic American deconstruction loses much of the radicality of the Derridean
interro!ation, for there is considerably less at stake in e;,osin! the rhetorical ruses and
meta,horicity of a medium such as literature ?hich is often concerned to fore!round the
undecidability of truth claims) -hat levera!e the deconstructive method e;erts u,on the
,hiloso,hical te;t, ?ith its claims to objectivity, its su,,ression of the fi!ural and tro,olo!ical
nature of lan!ua!e, is considerably ?eakened ?hen de,loyed in the analysis of a mode of ?ritin!
for ?hich the ,erils of meta,hor areAe; officioAa source of celebration) 'ndeed, it is often
ar!ued that in their analyses of the undecidable nature of literary lan!ua!e, American
deconstructionists such as 9illis %iller, 9artman, and de %an have returned to a ,osition not so
radically different from the >e? Critical ,ers,ective from ?hence they emer!ed) 18 For all its
ludic and abyssal @ualities, American deconstruction can be vie?ed as the restoration of an ethos
of readin! no less formalist than the old >e? Criticism ?hich it thinks to have left behind) 'n its
habit of scru,ulously close readin!, in its sus,ension of the e;trate;tual referent, of history, andA
most im,ortantly for our ,ur,osesAof the authorial subject, the school of American
deconstructionists ?ould seem not to have moved beyond formalism, but to have develo,ed
formalist readin! to an un,recedented ,itch of rhetorical and tro,olo!ical so,histication)
%any objections, naturally, mi!ht be made to this recu,erative readin! of construction in !eneral,
but in so far as the ,lacement of the author is concerned, it is clear that the rhetors of Eale have
made ,recious little advance u,on American formalism) 'ntention and ,ersonality, and the ?hole
host of e,istemolo!ical ,roblems they raise have been evaded by critical ,rescri,tions not
themselves noticeably different from those of the intentional fallacy and the ,ersonalist heresy)
The absence of the author is taken for !ranted as thou!h it belon!s to the vita ante acta of
contem,orary theory) The movement a!ainst the author in the France of the &84+s therefore
fulfils very much the same function for American deconstruction as -imsatt and Beardsley0s
formulation of the intentional fallacy did for the >e? Critics, in that it is taken as a ?ell:established
theoretical donnLe ?hich leaves the critic free to ,ursue entirely te;tualist readin!s ?ithout re!ard
or res,onsibility for ?hat those readin!s e;clude or short:circuit) Derrida, alon! ?ith Barthes and
Foucault, is evoked as thou!h he has demonstrated and achieved the disen!a!ement of the
author from the te;t and from the critical field such that it is ,ro,erly im,ro,er to s,eak of the
author in our day and a!e) To ar!ue or justify the death of the author is deemed triflin!, otiose$
these familiar ar!uments need no further recitation, it bein! the task of criticism to ,roceed in the
im,erturbable assurance of authorial disa,,earance)
>aturally, such an endurin! rejection of intention and authorshi, could not ,ass by entirely
unchallen!ed, and yet the fe? ?orthy attem,ts to restore literary intention have been isolated
,roductions and conse@uently ?ithout si!nificant influence) And ?hen, as in the >e? #ra!matism
5in its literary rather than lin!uistic manifestations 2+6, a more concerted assault has been made
on the theoretical ,osition, the central ar!uments ,ro,osed have sho?n themselves stran!ely
com,licitous ?ith certain as,ects of formalist and te;tualist thinkin!) 'n fact, the ,ra!matic
intentionalist challen!e made by Steven Bna,, and -alter Benn %ichaels adds a ne? cha,ter to
critical resistance to the author under the title of authorial return) 'f follo?ed throu!h to the letter,
their ,ro!ramme for restorin! an intention isomor,hic ?ith te;tual meanin! ?ould diminish the
author to even more skeletal ,ro,ortions than the notions of an 0author:function0, a 0decentred
subject0) As ?e have ar!ued earlier, there is no effective difference bet?een identifyin! the te;t
?ith its o?n meanin!s or those of its author, ?hilst that identification takes ,lace in absolutist
terms) The notion of 0author0 sim,ly colla,ses into that of 0te;t0 in the articulation of an
intentionality ?hich, as Bna,, and %ichaels themselves ha,,ily concede, is theoretically
irrelevant, 0methodolo!ically useless0, and ,ractically null and void)2& The return to the author
here is thus a return only to intention, and to a conce,t of intention that has no ,lace ?ithin either
the theoretical, critical, or ,ra!matic enter,rises)
So far from forcefully unsettlin! the tradition of An!lo:American formalism, such a ,ra!matic
!esture serves as one more ?ay of kee,in! authorial subjectivity in abeyance) -hat the >e?
Critics called 0objective meanin!0, the ,ostructuralists 0te;tuality0, and Bna,, and %ichaels0
0intention0Afor all their differences in ethosAserve the common ,ur,ose of em,tyin! out the
author:,roblematic) Conse@uently, from the era of liot on?ards, the dominant critical
methodolo!y in the An!lo:American tradition has turned a?ay from the ,roblems ,osed by
authorshi,, or has turned to?ard them only occasionally, and only by ?ay of the most drastically
im,overished descri,tions) >o attem,ts to consolidate, revise or redefine anti:authorial theory
have been made, nor has any decisive and broadly:based interest been sho?n in the ,roject of
authorial rene?al)
The =host 'n The %achine$ Authorial 'nscri,tion And The .imits <f Theory
Beneath and behind the continuin! theoretical refusals and reductions of authorial subjectivity lies
a model of te;tual sim,licity ?hich seeks to kee, 0life0 at bay) For the best ,art of the t?entieth
century, criticism has been se,arated into t?o domains) <n the one side, intrinsic and te;tualist
readin!s are ,ursued ?ith indifference to the author, on the other, bio!ra,hical and source
studies are undertaken as ,eri,heral 5sometimes ,o,ulist, sometimes narro?ly academic6
e;ercises for those ?ho are interested in narrative reconstructions of an author0s life or the
em,irical !enealo!y of his ?ork) The ,ro;imity of ?ork and life, the ,rinci,les of their se,aration
and interaction are ne!lected by the re,resentatives of 0?ork0 and 0life0 alike) -ork and life are
maintained in a stran!e and su,,osedly im,ermeable o,,osition, ,articularly by te;tualist critics
?ho ,roceed as thou!h life someho? ,ollutes the ?ork, as thou!h the bad bio!ra,hicist ,ractices
of the ,ast have someho? erased the connection bet?een bios and !ra,he, as thou!h the
,ossibility of ?ork and life inter,enetratin! sim,ly disa,,ears on that account)
>eedless to say, ?ork and life are not o,,osed, not even in the casual manner by ?hich ni!ht is
o,,osed to day) The ,rinci,les of any such counter,oise are themselves im,ossible to ima!ine)
>or either is an author0s life necessarily contin!ent, somethin! ?hich can be summarily e;tricated
and reduced to a ,osition of irrelevance or inferiority in the readin! of a te;t) The !roundin!
assum,tion of theoretical objections to 0life0 is that throu!h a,,ealin! to the bio!ra,hical referent,
?e are im,ortin! ,henomena from one realm into another ?herein it is alien, im,ro,er,
incon!ruous) Eet, even ?hilst sus,endin! reservations about this demarcation bet?een life and
an abiotic ?ritin!, ?hat does a ,ure te;tualism or formalism do ?ith a te;t ?hich incor,orates the
5auto6:bio!ra,hical as a ,art of its dramatur!y, a te;t ?hich sta!es itself ?ithin a bio!ra,hical
scene7 A te;t, for instance, like >ietFsche0s, ?hich continually refuses the idea that his life can be
jettisoned into a se,arate s,here7
'n cce 9omo, >ietFsche insists that his ?hole life, his entire oeuvre to date, are indis,ensable
,reludes to the te;t0s unfoldin!) The su,,osed forcefield bet?een his ?ritin! and his life is
undermined at every turn, even to the e;tent that his ,revious ?orksAcritically revie?ed by the
author himselfAbecome cha,ters of the >ietFschean autobio!ra,hy) From the outset, the
revaluation of values is an act of self:revelation, the 0self:overcomin! of morality throu!h
truthfulness, the self:overcomin! of the moralist into his o,,ositeAinto me ) ) ) 0) 2* To
understand the >ietFschean ,hiloso,hy, its te;ts declare, is first and foremost to understand and
behold the man) 9avin! interiorised the history of kno?led!e in such a ,rofound and unsettlin!
?ay, the forces re,resented by Christ and Dionysus 5or any other 0subjects0 invoked by the te;t,
Moltaire for e;am,le216 are at ?ork ?ithin the autobio!ra,hical, ,hiloso,hisin! subject himself) By
tellin! the story of his life, as he has done throu!hout his ,hiloso,hical career, >ietFsche is tellin!
the story of the overcomin!, of the ,assa!e from idealism to affirmation, Christ to Dionysus)
There is no tellin! life and ?ork, te;t and subject a,artA09ave ' been understood7ADionysos
a!ainst the Cruicfied0 22Astill less of cleavin! one from the other in the interests of a more
0ri!orous0, 0,ro,er0 or 0te;tual0 readin!) Any readin! ?hich i!nores the theatricality, the
autobio!ra,hical ,erformance of the >ietFschean subject sim,ly turns a?ay from the te;t)
<f course it is not at all easy for a te;tual theory to take on the ,erformance of a subject ?ithin his
te;t, not only an a?esomely com,le; and trans!ressive subject such as the author of cce
9omo, but any subject ?ho ardently inserts herself into her ?ritin!) 't is ,roblematic enou!h for
tro,es, rhetorics, narrative structures, si!ns, and so on, to become objects of a critical science
?ithout theory havin! also to confront the inter,lay bet?een ?ork and life, the shiftin! instabilities
of their borders, the modes of inscri,tion by ?hich a subject a,,ears in her te;t) <nce an
authorial subject is admitted into the theoretical ,icture of a te;t, that te;t becomes more difficult
to !overn and delimit, its identity, its se,aration from other entities is !ravely undermined) The
neat demarcations by ?hich bio!ra,hy is se,arated from a literary or a ,hiloso,hical te;t, or even
from a !eneral interte;tuality are immediately under threat) -e see, for e;am,le, ?hat ha,,ens
to Beyond the #leasure #rinci,leAa ?ork hitherto offered only to immanent and thematic
readin!sA?hen Derrida reads Freud0s dreams of le!acy, his o?n troubled family romance into
the formulation of a meta:,sycholo!y)23
'n the second cha,ter of this later, s,eculative, ?ork, Freud recalls seein! a baby boy 5in fact,
and in ,rinci,le, his !randson, but this is su,,ressed in the te;t6 ,layin! a !ame ?ith a ?ooden
reel attached to a ,iece of strin!)24 The !ame consists in thro?in! the reel out of his cot and then
retrievin! it ?ith evident ,leasure and relief, actions accom,anied res,ectively by the
e;clamations fort 5!one6, da 5there6) Freud inter,rets this as an attem,t by the child to ne!otiate
his mother0s absences, to create the illusion of her inevitable return at his ?ill and behest)
Throu!hout the account, the te;t ado,ts the neutrality of scientific descri,tionG the narrator is
sim,ly that anonymous, disinterested s,ectator ?ho observes, and ventures hy,otheses on the
,sycho:aetiolo!y of the !ame) 9o?ever, retracin!, or rather reconstitutin! the te;t in terms of the
Freudian 5auto6bio!ra,hy, Derrida discovers multi,le levels of subjective inscri,tion$ 0there are at
least three instances of the same OsubjectO, the narrator:s,eculator, the observer, the
!randfather0)2/ And there is to emer!e one further ,ersonaAfounder of ,sychoanalysis deftly
,ullin! all the strin!s of the analytic movement in order that the science of ,sychoanalysis
become the le!acy of his ,ro,er name, the inheritance of his dau!hter Anna, his !randson rnst,
the ,ro,erty of the family name 0Freud0$
Dust as rnst, in recallin! the object 5mother, thin!, ?hatever6 to himself, immediately comes
himself to recall himself, in an immediately su,,lementary o,eration, so the s,eculatin!
!randfather, in describin! or recallin! this or that, recalls himself) And thereby makes ?hat is
called his te;t, enters into a contract ?ith himself in order to hold onto all the strin!sKsons IfilsJ of
the descendance) >o less than of the ascendance) An incontestable ascendance) 2(
Reinscribed ?ith its subject, the te;t becomes mysterious, overloaded, oneiric$ vivified by the
name and bio!ra,hy of Freud, by the children of ?hom he has such dreams, by his dreams of a
familial destiny of the analytic movement !enerally, by the !randfather of the !randchild, by the
jealous !rand:father of ,sychoanalysis, Beyond the #leasure #rinci,le becomes a rebus in ?hich
nothin! remains sim,ly constative, theoretical, in ?hich ?hat ?e think of as a ?ork and a life lose
the identity of their se,arateness, in ?hich the force of desire, the Freudian conatus, unsettles
any objectivity) The entry of the author, and the author0s bio!ra,hy into the te;t multi:determines
the scene of its ?ritin!, dissolves any ,utative assum,tions that an author0s life does not belon!
?ith his ?ork, or belon!s to it only im,ro,erly) Readin! bio!ra,hically is not a neutralisin!,
sim,lifyin! activity) So far from functionin! as an ideal fi!ure, from fi!urin! as a function of
Cartesian certitude, the author o,erates as a ,rinci,le of uncertainty in the te;t, like the
9eisenber!ian scientist ?hose ,resence invariably disru,ts the scientificity of the observation)
%ore than any rhetorical solicitation, the re:entry of the subject into the ?ritin! disru,ts its claims
to objectivity, allo?s ener!ies and forces that e;ceed and elude its readin! in ,ro!rammatic or
lin!uistic terms) 0A 0domainO is o,ened0, Derrida ?rites, 0in ?hich the inscri,tion ) ) ) of a subject in
his te;t ) ) ) is also the condition for the ,ertinence and ,erformance of a te;t ) ) ) The notion of
truth is @uite inca,able of accountin! for this ,erformance)028
Critical theory, as ?e say, has sho?n itself no more ca,able of accountin! for authorial
,erformance, of ne!otiatin! the overla, of ?ork and life, since all theory is finally ,redicated u,on
an idea of order and systematicity, a reduction of the idea of te;t to a clear uncluttered field, to a
!iven ?hose !enealo!y is sus,ended) Thou!h criticism can in ,ractice read a te;t in terms of its
tro,es, a,orias, rhetorics, ?ords on the ,a!e, and also read in terms of bio!ra,hy, ,sycholo!ical
dynamics, authorial inscri,tion, and do so ?ithout obvious contradiction, the ,ro,a!ation of a
theory of readin! and of ?ritin! ?hich takes stock of all these determinants is a?esomely difficult
to conceive) The @uestion of the author tends to vary from readin! to readin!, author to author)
There are !reater and lesser de!rees of authorial inscri,tion, certain authors occu,y vastly more
si!nificant ,ositions than others in the history of influence, the attraction of the bio!ra,hical
referent varies from author to author, te;t to te;t, te;tual moment to te;tual moment) ach ne?
act of readin! itself ,resu,,oses a different or modified ,hiloso,hy of the author) A theory of the
author, or of the absence of the author, cannot ?ithstand the ,ractice of readin!, for there is not
an absolute co!ito of ?hich individual authors are the subalternant mani:festations, but authors,
many authors, and the differences 5in !ender, history, class, ethnolo!y, in the nature of scientific,
,hiloso,hical, and literary authorshi,, in the de!ree of authorshi, itself6 that e;ist bet?een
authorsA?ithin authorshi,Adefy reduction to any universalisin! aesthetic) 3+
Eet the ,romul!ation of a te;tual theory can no more elude the @uestion of the author than
contain it) As ?e have seen, the essential ,roblem ,osed by the author is that ?hilst authorial
subjectivity is theoretically unassimilable, it cannot be ,ractically circumvented) The ,rocesses of
intention, influence and revision, the interfertility of life and ?ork, autobio!ra,hy and the
autobio!ra,hical, author:functions, si!nature effects, the ,ro,er name in !eneral, the author:ity
and creativity of the critic, all these are ,oints at ?hich the @uestion of the author e;erts its
,ressure on the te;tual enclosure) >otions such as the Dead Author, the over:,rosecuted
fallacies of intention, ,ersonalism and !enesis, function as little more than defensive strate!ies
a!ainst the essentially overdetermined nature of the te;t, an overdetermination ?hich lies outside
the com,ass of any e;tant theoretical ,ro!ramme or charter) 'ndeed a concerted ,ro!ramme of
authorial reinscri,tion may ?ell be inconceivable under the banner of literary theoryG it could even
be that since theory became ,ossible ?ith the e;clusion of the author, the author si!nals the
im,ossibility of theory) This is a conclusion to be resisted, and one that can only be resisted by
theorists themselves, for the @uestion of the author ,oses itself ever more ur!ently, not as a
@uestion ?ithin theory but as the @uestion of theory, of its domains and their limits, of its
ade@uacy to the study of te;ts themselves, to the !enealo!y and modes of their e;istence) And it
does so in the manner of an interminable hauntin!, as that un@uiet ,resence ?hich theory can
neither e;,lain nor e;orcise)
,ilo!ue
Technolo!y And The #olitics <f Readin!
-ith data systems for user interactivity and !eometrically variable hy,erte;t, the reader is no
lon!er sim,ly s,ectator, one ?ho looks at meanin! throu!h the ,a!e0s ?indo? in rectan!le, from
the outside, but coauthor of ?hat he reads, a second ?riter and active ,artner) 9e can enter into
the landsca,e of meanin! and modify its architecture as he ?ishes) <nce monolo!ue, the te;t
becomes dialo!ue) 't loses its mass, is ,rivatiFed) 't is no lon!er a static invariant, a road travelled
in a !iven direction, recorded once and for all) Rather, it is a movin! mosaic 5te;t, ima!e, sound6,
an un,redictable se@uence of bifurcations, a nonhierarchical, un,redetermined crossroads ?here
each reader can invent his o?n course alon! a net?ork of communication nodes ) ) ) #erha,s in
fact, hy,erte;t ?ill be the ultrademocratic, fatherless and ,ro,ertyless, borderless and customs:
free te;t, ?hich everyone can mani,ulate and ?hich can be disseminated every?here)
RL!is Debray, 0The Book as Symbolic <bject0 &
0Cemeteries take ?hat they are !iven0, Mictor 9u!o ?arns in .es %isLrables, and just as literary
studies seemed to be develo,in! a?ay from the anti:authorialism of the &84+s, technolo!ical
visionaries have attem,ted yet another ,remature burial of the author) 'n &88*, =eor!e #)
.ando?0s 9y,erte;t* alerted the literary:theoretical and technolo!ical communities to a
0remarkable conver!ence of social, technolo!ical, and theoretical ,ressures0)1 .ando? ar!ues
that hy,erte;t technolo!y constitutes a literal embodiment of theory0s te;tual conce,ts) The fact
that the theoretical @uestionin! of the culture of the book undertaken by Barthes, Foucault and
Derrida ,roceeded in inde,endence of technolo!ical develo,ments is central to .ando?0s claim
that a ,aradi!m shift, a revolution in thou!ht has occurred ?hich takes us far beyond the book) 'n
a ,rima facie sense, .ando?0s case in arrestin!$ from the first hint, the reader ?ho is ac@uainted
?ith both cultures can easily construct ,arallels bet?een the more e;treme claims of
,oststructuralism and the resources of di!ital technolo!y for reconfi!urin! te;t, author and reader)
Barthes0s freedom of the reader translates into technolo!ical as ?ell as scri,tible terms, the le;ia
,refi!ures the item of di!itally liberated te;t 5reconfi!urable via marku, lan!ua!es6, Derridean
dLbordement becomes an o,erational feature of di!ital environments, Foucault0s attem,t to
reconceive the unities of discourse beyond those of book and author is literally enacted by
hy,erte;t ,ro!rammes) The fi;ed every?here !ives ?ay to the fluid, centres and mar!ins are
dissolved, meanin! is seen as illimitable, te;tuality becomes an o,en seaG authorial intention and
the order of the book are s?e,t aside by interte;tuality and the interactivity of the reader) A more
theoretical assembly of terms such as 0net?ork0 5rLseau6, 0inter?oven0 5s0y tissent6, alon! ?ith
slo!ans such as 0the end of the book0, 0the death of the subject0, 0the te;t as mosaic of citations0
are taken to be uncannily ,rescient of these develo,ments, almost as thou!h the mysterious
Foucauldian claim that the 0!round ) ) ) is once a!ain shiftin! under our feet0 ?as unconsciously
referrin! to this technolo!ical ,aradi!m shift) 2
This ,aradi!m shift is announced via a rhetoric of determinism, su,ersession and liberation)3
Takin! discontinuities in the ,ast to herald those of the future, advocates of the di!ital revolution
envisa!e that its influence on intellectual culture ?ill be com,arable to the shifts from s,eech to
?ritin!, from the scroll to code;, from te;tual scarcity to su,erabundance ?ith the invention of
moveable ty,e) Beyond their debts to %c.uhan, the visionary ar!uments for di!ital culture also
de,end u,on the inteniorisation theses ,ro,ounded in relation to the cultural assimilation of
?ritin!)4
-alter <n! ar!ues that ?ritin! restructures consciousness, ?hile ric 9avelock attributes the
!reat cultural intellectual shift that occurred in fifth:century Athens to co!nitive chan!es in the
human ,syche ,roduced by its ada,tation to the ?ritten ?ord) 'n freein! culture from the
immense burden of memorisin! the archive, ?ritin! ,rovided a means of storin! information
outside of the mind$ this freedom, 9avelock ar!ues, created an analytic subject in relation to
information) -here it is su,,osed that the transition from orality to literacy allo?ed for the
fundamental assum,tion of ?estern rationalismAa subject of kno?led!e is se,arated from an
object of kno?led!eAhy,erte;tual visionaries claim that the ,assa!e beyond the book ?ill
dissolve such cate!ories as authorshi,, selfhood and subjectivity) 'n relation to authorshi,, it is
,remised that the conce,t of the author derives from the culture of the book and that the colla,se
of the latter necessarily vitiates the former) Such ar!uments a!ain have a Danus:faced @uality)
Rather like the dubitable trajectory ?hich %c.uhan follo?ed in seein! a secondary orality in the
technolo!ies of radio and television, di!ital votaries find affinities in the ,re:technolo!ical ?orld of
,rimary orality) 'nteractivity is seen to restore the immediacy and co,resence of the s,eech
situation$ a dialo!ic or ,oly,honic anti:authoritarianism is ,romised in the 0scri,ted s,eech0 ?hich
contem,orary technolo!y facilitates) At the same time, the model of unitary authorshi, is
challen!ed by a collaborative model ?hich seeks distant antecedents in the accretional
construction of 09omeric0 e,ic, the o,en te;t of the %edieval ,eriod, or the ?ork of the
confabulatores nocturni of The Thousand and <ne >i!hts) #retechnolo!ical necessity is thereby
associated ?ith a virtuously democratic futurolo!y) The unifyin! functions of book and author are
rethou!ht as im,risonin! and monolo!ic im,ositions on a discursive s,here ?hich is ,ro,erly
?ithout closure or res,ite) From a ,astoralised ?orld in ?hich 0the te;t is handed over to the
reader in a state of ,erfection0, di!ital technolo!y constructs a realm ?here 0in the near future it
?ill be difficultAeven im,ossibleAto say ?ho is the author of a te;t0) Dust as 0the closed and
,rotected te;t ?ill be a thin! of the ,ast0, so too 0the boundary bet?een reader and author should
lar!ely disa,,ear0) / As %ichael 9eim ?rites in lectronic .an!ua!e$ 0di!ital ?ritin! turns the
,rivate solitude of reflective readin! and ?ritin! into a ,ublic net?ork ?here the ,ersonal symbolic
frame?ork needed for ori!inal authorshi, is threatened by linka!e ?ith the total te;tuality of
human e;,ressions0)(
'n considerin! these claims, nothin! could be further from the ,oint than to declare oneself for or
a!ainst technolo!y) 'ts ,ro!ress ?ill not be delayed or indeed e;,edited by any 0ou!ht0$ both the
first ?ord of ,ro,hecy and the last ?ord of reaction are e@ually out of ,lace) <ne can, ho?ever,
call into @uestion a re,resentation ?hich ,ur,orts to s,eak from else?here) Reflections on the
technolo!y la! behind the technolo!y itself, but the ar!ument insists that ?e inhabit an ideal
vanta!e ,oint ?hich has yet to be realised) 9o?, for e;am,le, are ?e to take the constructions of
multi,le authorshi, and the idea of the reader as coauthor ?ithin this ,ostla,sarian culture7 'n
?hat kind of ?orld ?ill the reconfi!uration of the canonical te;t be a com,ellin! actA?hether in
aesthetic or ,olitical terms7 'f interactivity allo?s the reader to become the co:author of, say,
#aradise .ost, are ?e to e;,ect that this 0ne?0 te;tAreconfi!ured and re,lete ?ith readerly
inter,olationsA?ill be a document of ?ides,read cultural interest7 The uto,ian nature of this
vision need hardly be stressed) <ne need not be an unreconstructed advocate of objective
aesthetic value to ,erceive that ?hile ' may become free to interact ?ith and co:com,ose Bach0s
%ass in B %inor, ' ?ould also e;,ect to be the sole auditor of my act of co:com,osition) A
seemin!ly less contentious construal ?ould take the claims of interactivity to mean that 0the active
reader necessarily collaborates ?ith the author in ,roducin! a te;t by the choices he or she
makes0) 'f this is the case, ho?ever, then the number of te;ts ,roduced by readers are
innumerable, just as Scotus ri!ena once said that scri,tural meanin!s are ?ithout limit) There
may ?ell be as many Bibles as its readers, but there are not innumerable versions of The Bible in
circulation) As Bor!es0s 0#ierre %enard$ Author of the Rui;ote0 ?ryly demonstrates, the ne varietur
form of the book does not inhibit re?ritin!s by the readerG the same form of ?ords can constitute
different te;ts in different times) 8 For us, the 'liad and the <dyssey are objects of aesthetic
,leasure and historical s,eculationG to the ,resocratic =reek they constituted !uides to ,ractical
action) The ?ords of the Tem,est have not chan!ed substantially but they com,ose today a te;t
different to the one e;,erienced by an inhabitant of liFabethan n!land) 9o?ever, a multitude of
readin!s im,lies a stable entity on ?hich such readin!s take ,lace 5and here much confusion
?ould be avoided if advocates of the di!ital revolution attended to Roman 'n!arden0s ar!ument
that the literary ?ork of art must be distin!uished from its concretisations, its mundane
re,roductions and the multi,le acts of readerly consciousness that it ,romotes&+6$ a tiny
,ro,ortion of those readin!s enter ,ublic consciousness and less still endure as acts of readin!
?hich have an on!oin! influence of the inter,retation of the ,rimary te;t) Any achieved act of
criticism reconfi!ures the te;t by ,ro,osin! a sin!ular channel and set of links to other te;ts) 't is
@uite ,ossible that e;traordinary documents of creative criticism ?ill one day be ,roduced usin!
di!ital technolo!y just as e;traordinary readers are once or t?ice ,roduced in a !eneration in the
forms of an <scar -ilde, a -illiam m,son) -hat is certain, ho?ever, is that the ne? technolo!y
?ill not ,roduce an ultrademocratic ?orld in ?hich a si!nificant ,ro,ortion of linked:u, readers
,roduce com,ellin! readin!s) The more modest variant of this claim asserts that hy,erte;t
,rovides a uni@ue cultural ?indo? throu!h ?hich ?e mi!ht revisit and reconsider our notions of
te;tuality, readin! and authorshi,) Certainly, there is much to be said for any event ?hich brin!s
our cultural assum,tions into clear focus andAlike the theoretical calls for the death of the author
Adi!italisation rescues the issue of authorshi, from a ,lace of indifference or easy acce,tance)
9o?ever, the o,,ortunity has been some?hat s,oiled by the s,onsorial Feal throu!h ?hich di!ital
culture is seen as a radical break ?ith all that has come before) 'n her recently ,ublished Neros
and <nes 5&88/6, Sadie #lant declares$
At the end of the t?entieth century, all notion of artistic !enius, authorial authority, ori!inality, and
creativity become matters of soft?are en!ineerin! ) ) ) Retros,ectively, from behind the backlit
screens, it suddenly seems that even the ima!es most treasured for their !od:!iven !enius ?ere
themselves matters of careful com,osition and technical skill) &&
0Careful com,osition and technical skill0 instantiate into 0soft?are en!ineerin!0, creativity is
reduced to a naive model of ins,iration 50!od:!iven !enius06) From the ,rivile!ed vanta!e of the
di!ital ,resent 50behind the backlit screens06, the entire tradition of literary and aesthetic criticism
a,,ears as the history of an error) Su,ersession often reduces the ,ast to ,astoral, a tendency to
?hich contem,orary technolo!ical discourse has surrendered in o,,osin! itself to a stereoty,ical
,icture of both authorshi, and a literary institution deemed to 0uncritically inflate Romantic notions
of creativity and ori!inality to the ,oint of absurdity0) As casualty, authorshi, is seen as ,ure
causality) Addressin! 0the ,reeminence of the author0, Raffaele Simone says$
'f the te;t is closed, it !enerally has an author 5or a definite number of authors6) >ot only is the
author the ,ure and sim,le !enerative source of the te;t but he or she also acts judicially, as it
?ere, because he or she assumes s,ecific ri!hts and duties by the ,ure and sim,le fact of
makin! him or herself the author of that te;t)&* Imy em,hasesJ
Caricature of this kind !uarantees that any item in a intelli!ent reflection on te;tuality ?ill serve to
dislod!e the author) 'n this manner, ,ioneers of hy,erte;t technolo!y adduce the resources
offered for multi,le authorshi, as a further reconfi!uration of the discursive field) 9o?ever, the
,henomenon of multi,le authorshi, has only ever been ,roblematic to the notion of authorshi,
?hen the latter is romantically conceived in terms of solitary !enius)&1 <ur acce,tance that liot0s
The -aste .and ?as sha,ed by Fra #ound has never interfered ?ith our sense of liot as the
author of Four RuartetsG Conrad ?ill be the author of "nder -estern yes even as he co:
authored Romance ?ith Ford %ado; Ford and benefited from the latter0s lendin!s to >ostromo)
De So,histicis lenchis remains a te;t of Aristotle, even ?hile ?e ?ill never kno? ?ho authored
the 'liad and the <dyssey) The Da,anese ren!a or The Thousand and <ne >i!hts com,ose
coherent ?orks in s,ite of bein! ,roduced by numerous individualsG %alcolm .o?ry0s "nder the
Molcano and Dames Doyce0s Finne!ans -ake are the uneven ?orks of sin!le authors) Di!ital
technolo!y only threatens to reconfi!ure authorshi, by 5i6 associatin! authorshi, ?ith absolute
aesthetic coherence and 5ii6 levellin! out com,le; discriminations bet?een ,rimary authorshi,,
secondary authorshi,, multi,le authorshi,, com,ilation, editorshi,, and scholarly annotation)
-itness .ando?0s descri,tion of his creation of The Dickens -eb$
The Dickens -eb, a sam,le 'ntermedia document set ,ublished by 'R'S in &88+, e;em,lifies the
kinds of collaborative authorshi, characteristic of hy,erte;t) The ?eb, ?hich contains *23
documents and almost 4(+ links, takes the form of 0a collection of materials about Charles
Dickens, his novel =reat ;,ectations, and many related subjects, such as Mictorian history,
,ublic health issues, and reli!ion0) Creatin! The Dickens -eb involved doFens of 0authors0 and
almost that many kinds of collaboration) &2
So too, ?e may assume, does the construction of a housin! estate, but ,seudo:,roblems of this
order are ne!otiated by ?ay of cor,orate identity$ similarly, the academic journal has !ot alon!
@uite ?ell throu!h its ado,tion of a uni@ue title) >umerous other e;am,les of this kind of
hy,erte;tual collaboration ?ill emer!e, all of ?hich may ,rom,t us to make more able 5and
inevitably hierarchical6 discriminations bet?een levels of involvement, de!rees of authorshi,)
Rather than actin! a!ainst the idea of authorshi,, The Dickens -eb confirms Foucault0s
e;,ansion of the conce,t of the author in terms of a creatin! a fieldAhere marked by 0Charles
Dickens0Ain ?hich other te;ts and authors ?ill find a ,lace) The Dickens -eb fully consorts ?ith
idea of a !reat author as an individual ?ho creates a discursive s,ace beyond the confines of an
individual life) 'ndeed, more san!uine hy,erte;tual enthusiasts actually envisa!e a coo,erative
relation bet?een cybers,atial redaction and the labours of authorshi,$
?e can sto, to consider the e;traordinary usefulness of an instrument ?hich can ,rovide us ?ith
not only different readin!s of a te;t, but also ?ith the ,ossibility of bein! able to !ras, the
,ro!ressive comin! into bein! of a te;t, considerin! all the as,ects
it contains or im,lies, an instrument ?hich ?hich can e@ui, the reconstructed te;t, as far as
,ossible, ?ith its various layers, each one ?orthy of bein! read) This is by no means a sim,le
o,eration, !iven the often insurmountable difficulty of identifyin! the ,recise moments and
chronolo!y of corrective interventions on the ,art of an author, but one ?hich can certainly be
realised at the level of the macrostructure, and this itself can facilitate the successive ?ork of
sectional restoration) &3
9avin! shuffled off its a,ocaly,tic airs, hy,erte;t mi!ht facilitate editions ?hich combine !enetic
criticism, manuscri,t variants, source studies, histories of the te;tus rece,tus etc), and in a
technolo!y ?hich ,ermits un,recedented sco,e and readability)
<ne need not ,ause lon! to reco!nise the alto!ether !reater benefits of constructive
collaboration ?ith an authorial document rather than ,seudo:creative linkin!) 9y,erte;t enables
the re,resentation of links) Broadly s,eakin!, these links ?ill be made in the diachronic and
synchronic s,heres) 'n the former case, the value of those links ?ill de,end on the coherence of
the field in ?hich links are madeG in the latter, value ?ill derive mainly from the com,etence and
intelli!ence of the linker5s6) >othin! is much chan!ed in conce,tual terms by the ,assa!e from
,rint to di!ital culture$ the difference resides in the literalisation that hy,erte;t ,rovides of these
o,erations) As =eor!es #oulet reminds us, a book is not just an object amon! others$ it !ains its
essential life only ?hen read)&4 >o te;t is 0a s,ace that resists all intrusion0&/ and the only closed
te;t is one that has never been o,ened) <nce read, a book has a life beyond its ,hysical or
authorial confines, and that life is al?ays interactive, even ?hen the reader lives ?ith the memory
of the book, constructs him or herself as the dialo!ic counter,art of its author) At this sta!e,
hy,erte;t vividly illustrates the com,le; net?ork of ,rocesses by ?hich an active reader reads a
?ork$ it ,rovides an e;ternal correlative for ,atterns of thou!ht established in a culture of ,rint)
#ro,onents and visionaries of the ne? discourse ?ould do ?ell to em,hasise these continuities$
the !enius of hy,erte;t resides in its un,recedented facility for makin! e;terior mechanisms of
consciousness ?hich have been develo,ed over the millennia since the invention of ?ritin!) 9ere
one ?ould ?ant to add to the interiorisation thesis a related thesis of e;teriorisation)
The radical ar!ument for di!italised ?ritin! de,ends not u,on hy,erte;t as e;ternal technolo!y
but u,on its ca,acity to restructure human consciousness ?ith an revolutionary effect com,arable
to the interionisation of ?ritin!) Eet, even if accredited, the interiorisation thesis ,roscribes that
such restructurin! takes ,lace over many centuries of ,sychic ada,tation to the ne? technolo!y)
-hen one considers ho? radical Au!ustine found St Ambrose0s habit of silent readin!, it is clear
that ?ritin! ?as lon! considered the servant of vo;, just as it ?as more common to ?rite do?n
than to ?rite in an intransitive fashion$ only ?ith the advent of ,rint culture did it become
customary to ,roceed from the silent si!nifier to the conce,t si!nified and ?ithout the mediation of
the voice) &( 'n ,rojectin! an interiorised di!italisation, the radical hy,erte;tualist ar!ument
comes too early) 'f ?ritin! ?as only slo?ly and ja!!edly interiorised as a constructive com,onent
of the human ,syche, then one may not s,eak of the interiorisation of hy,erte;tual technolo!y
from this matinal ,oint in its history) Thus the di!ital ar!ument a!ain a,,eals to ,ossible and
,rojected futures, to a culture ?here di!italisation has been thorou!hly interiorised as a
com,onent of the human ,syche) The stron!er ar!umentAackno?led!in! also the ease and
celerity ?ith ?hich culture has embraced di!italisationA?ould see the ne? technolo!y as an
e;teriorisation of co!nitive ,rocesses develo,ed in a culture of ?ritin!) The ca,acity of the literate
mind to establish links and interte;ts is itself the foundation u,on ?hich a technolo!y of linkin!
has been established) As 9illis %iller ,oints out, =eor!es #oulet0s .es %etamor,hoses du Cercle
is a ,roto:hy,erte;tual o,eration, and one of !reat distinction since #oulet0s uni@ue carto!ra,hy
de,ends not only u,on sublime connections but also an ele!ant selectivity)00&8 The book ma,s
both the ima!e of the circle and the mind ?hich ma,s that ima!e0s recurrences) @ually, the
im,ressive ?ork of reconfi!uration undertaken by Roland Barthes0s SKN may ?ell ,refi!ure
hy,erte;tual deconstructions, but the ?orth of this e;,osLof 0natural0 narrative de,ends u,on the
critical brilliance of a Roland Barthes) To this e;tent, the most 5and 0most0 is here a !reat deal6
that can be said about di!ital technolo!ies is that they e;teriorise those synthetic and analytical
,rocesses ?hich the human mind develo,ed in its ada,tation to a ?orld of ?ritten te;t) So far as
our horiFons e;tend, di!ital technolo!y is the bountiful correlative of !ra,hic culture)
The interiorisation thesis u,on ?hich radical conce,tions of the di!italised future de,end itself
condemns visionaries to falsify a ,aradi!m shift ?hose ,romised contours and countries are
necessarily inconceivable) Cau!ht ?ithin the ever:recurrent ,arado; ?hereby a determinism
cannot be articulated by those ?ho live ?ithin its frames, the theorists of hy,erte;t have no
substantial ,oint of recourse e;ce,t to ,oliticise cybers,ace) By ?ay of claims ?hich conflate
readerly and ,olitical em,o?erment, the ne? technolo!ies are ,resented as the material
embodiment of the 0Co,ernican overturnin!0 by ?hich te;ts revolve around the reader rather than
the author) The 0ultrademocratic0 freedom of the reader is o,,osed to a tyrannically author:
centred literature ?hich forces the reader do?n a ,re:determined and linear ,ath im,osed by
authorial intention) As .ando? ,resents the case$
ItheJ liberatin! and em,o?erin! @uality of hy,erte;t a,,ears in the fact that the reader also ?rites
and links, for this ,o?er, ?hich removes much of the !a, in conventional status bet?een reader
and author, ,ermits readers to read actively in an even more ,o?erful ?ayAby annotatin!
documents, ar!uin! ?ith them, leavin! their o?n traces) As lon! as any reader has the ,o?er to
enter the system and leave his or her mark, neither the tyranny of the center nor that of the
majority can im,ose itself) The very o,en:endedness of the te;t also ,romotes em,o?erin! the
reader) *+
-hilst no:one ?ould dis,ute the ri!ht of the reader to choose his or her o?n ,ath of readin!, it is
credulous to see this as 0em,o?erment0 in the ,olitical s,here$ the notions of freedom and
em,o?erment are traduced or trivialised by an 0antihierarchical0 ar!ument ?hich never addresses
the economic issue of access, nor the ,ossibility that technoculture mi!ht further ?iden the !a,
bet?een affluent and im,overished cultures)
ven ?hen taken on its o?nAte;tualistAterms, the ar!ument for the ,olitical value of dis,lacin!
the author fails to ,ersuade) Authorial orderin! is more a ?ay of !uidin! the reader throu!h a
,articular e;,erience than a soverei!n claim u,on the te;tual centre) -ould ?e, for e;am,le, see
a Dante 0em,o?ered0 throu!h bein! relieved of Mir!il in his ne!otiation of the 'nferno, a Theseus
as 0liberated0 in the labyrinth by the removal of Ariadne0s cle? of thread7 The 0em,o?erment0 of
the reader is a ,olitical act only ?ithin a institutional ?orld ?hich takes its o?n storms and
seasons for the ?orld) 'n associatin! itself ?ith a ,olitics of readin!, the 0theorisation0 of di!italised
technolo!yAsomethin! alto!ether different from the ?ork of those ?ho construct and refine
technolo!iesAdisinters some of the most e!re!iously falsifyin! ar!uments for the removal of the
author) Sadie #lant, in a feminist variant on .ando?0s conver!ence theory, ,oliticises
technoculture by establishin! its essential characteristic as the 5essentially feminine6 art of
?eavin!) <n the basis of a meta,horical connection bet?een the terms used to describe di!ital
systems and the s,ecific 5industrial6 ,ractices of the loom, #lant dra?s on 'ri!aray to su!!est that
technolo!ical chan!e marks a break bet?een a manned ,ast and an unmanned future$ 0Dust as
?eavin!s and their ,atterns are re,eatable ?ithout detractin! from the value of the first one
made, di!ital ima!es com,licate the @uestions of ori!in and ori!inality, authorshi, and authority
?ith ?hich -estern conce,tions of art have been ,reoccu,ied)0 *& Does it not betray a ,oi!nant
sense of ,olitical ineffectuality for literary criticism to alle!orise its o?n activities in terms of an
o,,ressive author, an o,,ressed reader and a ,olitics of readin! @ua readin!7 Do ?e not detect
here an obsession ?ith the ,olitics of the si!n ?hich has erased all si!ns of the ,olitical7 <ne can
see the ,oliticisation of readin! as sym,tomatic of a breachA!ro?in! since %ay &84(Abet?een
the ?orld of the institution and the ?orld of e;ternal ,olitical realities 5?hose e;istence so:called
,olitical critics have effectively denied on the !rounds of re,resentation bein! humanist and
illusory6) Di!ital technolo!y re,resents the latest addition to this tendency$ its 0,olitics0 rest on the
assum,tions that the medium is the messa!e and that the messa!e is inherently ,olitical) Fredric
Dameson, himself a stem critic of technolo!ical ,retensions to ,olitical radicalism, admits the very
,rinci,le that allo?s institutional self:re!ulation to mask as a ,olitical act) 'f indeed one acce,ts
that the 0only effective liberation ) ) ) consists in the reco!nition that there is nothin! that is not
social and historicalAindeed, that everythin! is 0in the last analysis0 ,olitical0,** then nothin! can
be falsely ,olitical$ ,olitical si!nificance can be claimed for debates ?hich have not the sli!htest
relevance to economic, racial, social or se;ual e@ualities, includin! even that melancholy shift
from the active case of a ,olitics of ?ritin! to the ,assivity of a ,olitics of readin!) -ith admirable
directness, =ayatri S,ivak says$ 0-e are not discussin! actual ,olitical commitment but our fear
that students and collea!ues ?ill think ?e are old:fashioned if ?e ,roduce a coherent discourse
about ,olitical commitment after the ,ost?ar criti@ues of %odernism and, indeed, of Sartrean
humanism0)*1 'n the name of little more than fashion, and from the era of Sartre, De Beauvoir,
Russell et al), to that of ,oststructuralism, ,olitical en!a!ement has been surrendered by the
?orld of letters) 'n this sallo? retreat from authorial en!a!ement to readerly em,o?erment, the
death of the author marks a ,oint so iconic that the reconstruction of the ,olitical may de,end in
considerable measure u,on the rematerialisation of the author)
9alf Dust, 9alf Deity0$ The %iddle -ay <f Situated Authorshi,
Di!ital constructions of authorshi, and readin! re,lace the Bantian 0vie? from no?here0 ?ith a
0vie? from every?here0)*2 >o attem,t is made to situate either the technolo!ical ar!ument or the
s,ecific ,ractices of readin! and ?ritin! to ?hich it refers) 'n this sense, the theoretical
a,,ro,riation of di!ital culture ,rovides a ne!ative reminder of the need to treat authorshi, as a
situated activity) =iven the immense difficulties involved in attem,tin! any theorisation of authorial
,ractices, it is not ,ossible here to do more than state the necessity of installin! the human ?ithin
the subject and to outline some of the challen!es this ,roject ?ould face) 'n addressin! such a
need there ?ould seem to be only one tenet that can be stated ?ith any confidence$ to ?it, that
authorshi, is the ,rinci,le of s,ecificity in the ?orld of te;ts) So far from consolidatin! the notion
of a universal or unitary subject, the retracin! of the ?ork to its author is a ?orkin!:back to
historical, cultural and ,olitical embeddedness)
The need to !round authorshi, should be felt most intensely ?ithin ,olitical forms of literary
criticism) Feminist ado,tions of the death of the authorKsubject have led to somethin! very close
to the death of feminism as an ethical, social and ,olitical movement) Reco!nisin! as much,
Seyla Benhabib ?rites$ 0The situated and !endered subject is heteronomously determined but still
strives to?ard autonomy) ' ?ant to ask ho? in fact the very ,roject of female emanci,ation ?ould
be thinkable ?ithout such a re!ulative ideal of enhancin! the a!ency, autonomy and selfhood of
?omen)0 *3 "nderstandably, Benhabib0s Situatin! the Self is only able to declare the necessity of
such a rematerialisation of subjectivity$ confronted ?ith the issue of ho? such a situatin! mi!ht
,roceed, her te;t is silent) #erha,s beyond any theorisation, the ,roblems of situatin! the self are
com,ounded in feminism by its mission to !eneralise subjectivity at the level of se;ual identity)
<ne cannot call a feminism ?hich claims half of the human raceAcuttin! across se;ualities,
nationalities, ethnicities and class ,ositionsAa s,ecifyin! or situatin! o,eration in the same ?ay
as identifyin! a African:American female ,oet from Alabama or a male, #rotestant novelist of
>orthern 'reland si!nals a full de,arture from the !eneralised subject ,osition) Breakin! the
autonomy of the humanist subject in t?o does not seem to break it sufficiently, and for that
reason !ender ?ould seem to be one form of authorial s,ecificity amon!st others) To this e;tent,
the role of a dis,ersed feminism in informin! current critical returns to sin!ularity, to s,ecificity
and historical overdetermination ?ould seem more historically a,,ro,riate than the attem,t to
,ro,ose a unified field of female subjectivity)
9o?ever, ?hile feminism addresses the @uestion of situatedness ?ith direct reference to
subjectivity and authorial ,lacements, much of contem,orary critical discourse refuses to frame
its conte;tual returns ?ithin any kind of authorial le;icon) #ostmodern em,hases on locality, on
little narratives, on sin!ularityG neo:ethical concerns ?ith res,ectin! the <therness of the <therG
,ostcolonial s,ecifications of the subaltern, of national and historical conte;tsAall these drives
?ithin contem,orary critical discourse ,ass from the te;t to its histories ?ithout ,ro,erly
ackno?led!in! that an authorial life and its ?ork allo? such a ,assa!e to be made) The author
?ill be e;ceeded but never by,assed in the critical movement to the time, the ,lace, the social
ener!ies and structures in ?hich the te;t ?as constituted) 'n historicist readin!s, also, it ?ill be
throu!h letters, bio!ra,hical details, documents relatin! to the ?riter0s life and dealin!s that ?e
arrive at 0?hatever in a ,oem is most concrete, local and ,articular to it0) *4 ven stron! >e?
9istoricist readin!s ?hich utilise information about ?hich the author could have no kno?led!e 5for
e;am,le, the use of French ,rovincial le!al history in the inter,retation of T?elfth >i!ht6 ?ill
reco!nise, if not be ruled by, the relation of an author to his or her times$ amon! the 0many voices
of the dead0 is also the voice of a dead author)*/ The contrary movement by ?hich t?entieth:
century criticism has sou!ht 0to lift the ,oem out of its ori!inal historical conte;t0, only achieves
this deracination throu!h do?n,layin! the role of the historical author)*( Aesthetic autonomy is
claimed insofar as the te;t is se,arated from its authorial circumstance, its res !estae) 'n sayin!
that 0the critic ,laces himself in a ,osition from ?hich he can treat the literary ?ork as if it ?ere a
timeless object, unconnected ?ith history0, Derome %c=ann fails to reco!nise that such
idealisation arises from a lack rather than e;cess of attention ,aid to its historical author)*8
Similarly, =reenblatt0s reco!nition that 0the a,,arently isolated ,o?er of the individual !enius
turns out to be bound u, ?ith collective social ener!y0, covertly installs a situated authorial
subjectivity)1+ Authorial ,lacement may ?ell be a methodolo!ical by:,roduct of ,olitical readin!s
?hose aim, ri!htfully, is to construct a ne;us of ,o?er relations in ?hich the author is only one
element, but there are also institutional reasons ?hy an e;,licit return to the author has been
absent from conte;tual criticism) An embarrassment before the author remains, and one ?hich
derives from the association of authorshi, ?ith an absolutist ,icture of intention) As ' have tried to
ar!ue, this isomor,hic model of intention s,ecifies no intention at all$ in their shared determination
of the te;t as autonomous and ,erfectum, transcendental intention and the notion of the autotelic
te;t have the effect of thorou!hly im,ersonalisin! literature) Conversely, ?hile intelli!ent critical
,ractice ?ill use the faultlines or com,etitions ?ithin authorial intention so as to o,en the te;t to
its conte;ts, such criticism is construed in anti:authorial terms even as its actual itineraries use
the author to break u, the ideal unity of the ?ork) 9ere criticism fails to overtly reco!nise that the
author is that one cate!ory ?hich clearly overla,sAone mi!ht even say conjoinsAte;t and
conte;t) Eet a!ain, all too heavy an investment in the conce,t of the author as transcendental
subject forbids methodolo!ical returns to the author in those more fecund areas of ?ill, relevant
bio!ra,hical detail, the relations of ?orks in an oeuvre to one another, the issues of ethical
res,onsibility and so on) The transcendentalKim,ersonal refle; 1& thus continues to delay any
concerted rea,,raisal of authorial roles and ,revents contem,orary criticism from ackno?led!in!
the model of authorial situatedness buried in the movement from the te;t to the cultural ener!ies
of ?hich it is both ,roduct and e;em,lum)
%oreover, !rave ,roblems arise from the inade@uacy of theoretical or methodolo!ical lan!ua!e to
describe the situated subjectivity im,licit ?ithin conte;tual criticism) -e all kno? that te;ts are
?ritten by ,eo,le ?ith histories, desires, ?ith !lorious im,erfections and dismayin! ,rejudice) Eet
the attem,t to ,icture such an authorial subject leaves us in the @uandary of that St Au!ustine
?ho confessed to kno?in! ?hat time is only until asked 0?hat is time70) Situatin! the author may
involve a return to that conflation of ,hiloso,hical and literary subjectivity ?hereby modernity
transferred the theolo!ical ,ro,erty of transcendence from the subject of kno?led!e to the
authors of te;ts) This return ?ould be to =erman 'dealism0s e;tension of critical ,hiloso,hy to
literary theory, to the foundations of romantic aesthetics as to the !reat dilemma Bant be@ueathed
to modernity by em,tyin! the 0'0 of the unity of a,,erce,tion of all e;istential substance) The
Bantian ,ostulation of a subject both transcendental but no?here fi!ured in the ?orldAan
ahistorical 0'0 ?hich is the ,recondition of e;,erience but is devoid of all e;,eriential contentAhas
been mistranslated into literary criticism)1* ither ideally aloof from the creation in the manner of
the theolo!ical authors of Schiller and Flaubert, or ideally absent after hi!h Romantic, modernist,
>e? Critical and theoretical models, one finds a te;t drained of all reference to the livin!,
historically circumscribed ,erson ?hose name it bears) Restorin! that ,erson, that uni@ue face
?hich #lutarch tells us ?ill never occur a!ain, involves a return to Bant so as to turn a?ay from
the model of transcendental subjectivity and its mistranslation in terms of literary authorshi,) The
,oint of such an incursion ?as su!!ested by 9eide!!er as that moment in the Bantian
schematism ?hen transcendental ,hiloso,hy briefly o,ened itself to an occluded ,o?er ?ithin the
human subject throu!h ?hich ima!ination or!anised s,ace and time) 11 As 9eide!!er
reco!nises, no sooner did the ,ossibility of fillin! out the em,ty subject of the transcendental
deduction ,resent itself, than the author of critical ,hiloso,hy dre? back into the sanctuary of his
formal and e;istentially hollo? system) Amidst the brilliant architecture of the first criti@ue, the
@uestion ?as closed as to ?hat or ?ho the 0'0 throu!h ?hich e;,erience is or!anised mi!ht be) To
this e;tent, those seminal te;ts ?hich have attem,ted to humanise the subject of kno?led!e may
,rove the most ,roductive !uides in an attem,t to situate this em,ty subject, the !hostly 0'0 of
modernity and its inertly unkno?able objects) 9ere ?e ?ill think of >ietFsche0s ,ers,ectivism,
?hereby the author, artist or ,hiloso,her is a ,art of the ,icture he or she ,aintsG 9eide!!er0s
notion of 0bein! in the ?orld0, of e;istence and of its e;,ressions as a !roundednessG Sartre0s
en!a!ed and historically situated subject) Retro!rade thou!h this loo, from ,ostmodern thou!ht
to 0e;istential0 vie?s of selfhood and authorshi, may seem, it is clear some re:turn is needed in a
critical culture ?hich is ?ary of a,,roachin! its authors, its ethos, even itself) .iterary thou!ht
?ould once a!ain be faced ?ith redoubtable ,roblems of translation, not this time from a
,hiloso,hical to literary transcendence, but from a ,hiloso,hical immanence to a literary
situatedness)
This ,ros,ect is one ,eculiar horiFon of the contem,orary tem,er ?e label the 0,ostmodern0)
#erha,s also, the route to?ard a theory of situated authorial subjectivity ?ill be com,elled to
announce itself in the form of a >e? 9umanism) -hatever the event, this return must attend to
the s,irit, if not the letter, of 9arold Bloom0s affirmation of embattled subjectivity) 't ?ill need to
ca,ture
the a!onistic ima!e of the human ?hich suffers, the human ?hich thinks, the human ?hich ?rites,
the human ?hich means, albeit too humanly, in that a!on the stron! ,oet must ?a!e, a!ainst
otherness, a!ainst the self, a!ainst the ,resentness of the ,resent, a!ainst anteriority, in some
sense a!ainst the future)12
Amon! the manifold tra!edies and blas,hemies of the human is that the terms of our thou!ht are
still so e;,licitly theolo!ical as to allo? us to !ras, transcendence and absence alto!ether more
surely than the distinctively human, that ever:sin!ular ,lace of desire, ?ill and history from ?hich
s,rin! all acts of authorshi,) 'n ca,turin! that distinctively human, ?e mi!ht confront afresh the
fact of our o?n mortality) Cicero echoes the Socrates of #haedo 54/d6 ?hen he says that
,hiloso,hisin! is ,re,arin! for death) %ontai!ne makes of this a ,eda!o!ic im,erative in sayin!
that 0To ,hiloso,hise is to learn ho? to die0 and adds that a life is al?ays com,lete ?hen it is over)
13 Authorshi, is the most s,ectacular and doomed defiance of this ?isdom$ it is the limit of an
e;,ressive ?orld and the strivin! ?e make to?ard a beyond) 'f, as -allace Stevens su!!ested,
0the theory of ,oetry is the theory of life0, the theory of authorshi, too has its tenebrous ,lace in
our sense of human destiny and its narratives)
>otes
#rolo!ue$ The Deaths <f #aul De %an
&) #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism, second
edition, revised and enlar!ed, ed) -lad =odFich 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(16, ,) ;ii)
*) De %an0s ?ritin!s of this ,eriodAincludin! also articles ?ritten in Flemish for 9et Mlaamsche
.andAhave been collected as #aul de %an, -artime Dournalism &818P&821, eds) -erner
9amacher, >eil 9ertF and Thomas Beenan 5.incoln, >ebraska$ "niversity of >ebraska #ress,
&8((6)
1) See David .ehman, Si!ns of the Times$ Deconstruction and the Fall of #aul de %an 5.ondon$
AndrL Deutsch, &88&6 ?hich, ?hilst not the most reliable !uide to deconstruction, ,rovides the
fullest bio!ra,hical account of de %an to date)
2) #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism, o,) cit),
,) &43)
3) For vie?s of this kind, as ?ell as vi!orous defences of the inte!rity of deconstruction see
-erner 9amacher, >eil 9ertF and Thomas Beenan, eds, Res,onses$ <n #aul de %an0s -artime
Dournalism 5.incoln, >ebraska$ "niversity of >ebraska #ress, &8(86)
4) Frank Bermode ,resents such a median ,osition in The "ses of rror 5.ondon$ Collins, &88+6,
,,) &+*P&()
/) #aul de %an, cited in Dac@ues Derrida, 0.ike the Sound of the Sea Dee, ?ithin a Shell$ #aul de
%an0s -ar0, Critical 'n@uiry, vol) &*, no) 1 5S,rin! &8((6, ,,) 38+P43*$ ,) 4*1)
() These cate!ories characterise the debate in !eneral) As Christo,her >orris says$ 0There are
three ,ossible lines of res,onse to the discovery of these ?artime ?ritin!s) The first ) ) ) ?ould
take the ?orst ,ossible vie? of their content, and ?ould hold furthermore that everythin! de %an
?ent on to ?rite must 5so to s,eak6 carry !uilt by association, and therefore be dee,ly sus,ect on
ideolo!ical !rounds) The second ?ould hold, on the contrary, that de %an0s later te;ts have
absolutely nothin! in common ?ith his early ?ritin!s, that in fact they e;hibit an e;treme
resistance to ,recisely that form of dan!erously mystified thinkin!, and should therefore be
treated as belon!in! to a different order of discourse) The third ) ) ) is that de %an0s later ?ork
!re? out of an a!oniFed reflection on his ?artime e;,erience, and can best be read as a
,rotracted attem,t to make amends 5albeit indirectly6 in the form of an ideolo!ical auto:criti@ue)0A
Christo,her >orris, #aul de %an$ Deconstruction and the Criti@ue of Aesthetic 'deolo!y 5.ondon$
Routled!e, &88(6, ,,) &(8P8+) There is at least one more form of ,ossible res,onse, that of a
radical anti:authorialism ?hich ?ould affirm that 0#aul de %an0 si!nifies nothin!, and that
conse@uently there is no oeuvre) To the best of my kno?led!e, ho?everAand for all the
theoretical insistence on the death of the authorAno:one has risked this ,articular line of
ar!ument)
8) <ne revie?er of the first edition of this book has noted$ 0Such an emotive and controversial
issue forestalls thinkin!0ADulian -olfreys, 0#remature <bituaries0, Radical #hiloso,hy 4/
5Summer &8826, ,,) 3/P($ ,) 3() This may ?ell be the case, but the fact of controversy itself
o,ens attention to the ,rocedures by ?hich thou!ht 5!ood or bad6 about the affair of de %an
could occur) A si!natory contract has al?ays been in ,lace, one ?hich is raised to e;treme
visibility by the moment of controversy) As the very different cases of 9eide!!er and Rushdie
also attest, @uestions of authorshi, are the first to be raised ?hen a te;t finds itself at the centre
of a cultural crisis) Tribunals are constituted ?ith the ,rimary mission of evaluatin! the discursive
act in terms of its res !estae$ close attention is !iven to the circumstances of ?ritin!, the
,lacement of the ?riter relative to the historical moment, the conte;tualisin! effect of other
?ritin!s ?ithin the oeuvre, local ,ressures to ?hich the ?ritin! ?as subjected, the !rounds for
attributin! a clear intention from te;t to ?riter, and so on) The necessity of holdin! an author to
account is asserted in direct ,ro,ortion to the ,erceived !ravity of the issues raised by the te;t,
but the si!nature has already ,re,ro!rammed channels of ethical recall to the still:livin! author,
the heirs of the dead author 5in the form of family, institutions associated ?ith the author0s name6,
the field described by an author0s life and ?ork) A si!nature or act of authorshi, is thus addressed
to an ethical future in ?hich the still:livin!, dead or de,arted subject may be recalled to his or her
te;t) This thread?ork is ?oven in the !a, bet?een subject and si!n, the s,ace of formerly ,resent
absence ?hich a si!nature marksG it describes nothin! more and nothin! less that the ethical
contract on ?hose basis the institution of authorshi, is established) To si!n is to acce,t, even to
antici,ate the ,ossibility of resummons) -hat jud!ements are subse@uently made bet?een te;t,
author and history are made inde,endently of the act of si!nin! but can only take ,lace on its
basis) 'n this sense, the authorial si!nature functions both as ethical ,ros,ect and as an ethical
su,,lement of mortality) For a full elaboration of this ar!ument see Sen Burke, 0The Te;tual
state$ #lato and the thics of Si!nature0, 9istory of the 9uman Sciences, vol) 8, no) & 5February
&8846, ,,) 38P/*)
&+) De %an0s theme of autobio!ra,hy as a form of self:cancellation rather than self:e;,ression is
clearly stated in #aul de %an, The Rhetoric of Romanticism 5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity
#ress, &8(26, ,,) 4/P8&)
&&) #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism, o,)
cit), ,) 28)
&*) Dac@ues Derrida, 0.ike the Sound of the Sea Dee, ?ithin a Shell$ #aul de %an0s -ar0, o,) cit),
,) 381)
&1) 't may be objected that the case of de %an is unre,resentative, that one could scarcely
e;,ect theorists to maintain their belief in the absence of the author ?hen confronted ?ith so
!rievous a situation$ but my ,oint is that it re@uired such a !rotes@ue scenario to force theory to
reco!nise that the ,rinci,le of the author has al?ays been o,erative, that the author had never
disa,,eared) The conce,t of the author could not have forced itself u,on critical attention in this
situation had it not al?ays and every?hereAde facto and de jureAbeen active and resistant to
theoretical re,ression)
'ntroduction$ A #rehistory <f The Death <f The Author
&) 'n France, %allarmL?as doubtless the first to see and foresee in its full e;tent the necessity to
substitute lan!ua!e itself for the ,erson ?ho until then had been su,,osed to be its o?ner) For
him, for us too, it is lan!ua!e ?hich s,eaks, not the authorG to ?rite is, throu!h a ,rere@uisite
im,ersonality ) ) ) to reach that ,oint ?here only lan!ua!e acts, 00,erformsO, and not OmeO ) ) )
MalLry ) ) ) never sto,,ed callin! into @uestion and deridin! the Author$ he stressed the lin!uistic
and, as it ?ere, 0haFardous0 nature of his activity, and throu!hout his ,rose ?orks he militated in
favour of the essentially verbal condition of literature, in the face of ?hich all recourse to the
interiority of the ?riter seemed to him ,ure su,erstition) #roust ) ) ) ?as visibly concerned ?ith
the task of ine;orably blurrin!, by an e;treme subtilisation, the relation bet?een the ?riter and his
characters ) ) ) .astly, to !o no further than this ,rehistory, of modernity, Surrealism ) ) )
contributed to the desacralisation of the ima!e of the Author by ceaselessly recommendin! the
abru,t disa,,ointment e;,ectations of meanin! ) ) ) by entrustin! the hand ?ith the task of
?ritin! as @uickly as ,ossible ?hat the head itself is una?are of 5automatic ?ritin!6, by acce,tin!
the ,rinci,le and the e;,erience of several ,eo,le ?ritin! to!ether)0ARoland Barthes, 0The Death
of the Author0 in Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, trans) and ed) Ste,hen 9eath 5.ondon$
Fontana, &8//6, ,,) &2*P($ ,,) &21P2)
*) As one counter e;am,le to Barthes0s de,iction of MalLry$ 0The object of art and the ,rinci,le of
its artifice is ,recisely to communicate the im,ression of an ideal state in ?hich the man ?ho
should ,ossess it ?ill be able to ,roduce s,ontaneously, effortlessly and indefati!ably a
ma!nificent and marvellously ordered e;,ression of his nature and of our destinies)0A#aul
MalLry, 0Remarks on #oetry0 in T) =) -est trans) and ed), Symbolism$ An Antholo!y 5.ondon$
%ethuen, &8(+6, ,,) 21P4+$ ,,) 38P4+)
1) See 0Bafka and his #recursors0 in Dor!e .uis Bor!es, .abyrinths 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin
Books, &8/+6, ,,) *12P4)
2) Ste,hane %allarmL, 0Crisis in Merse0 in T) =) -est trans) and ed), Symbolism$ An Antholo!y,
o,) cit), ,,) &P&*$ ,,) (P8)
3) %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s$ An Archaeolo!y of the 9uman Sciences, trans) Alan
Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/+6, ,,) 1+3P4)
4) The differences bet?een im,ersonalist and modern anti:authorial ,ositions ?ill be develo,ed at
various ,oints throu!hout this ?ork) For the moment it is sufficient to remark that, firstly,
im,ersonalist ideas have been !enerally mooted by artists as aesthetic rather than theoretical
statementsG and secondly, the im,ersonalist aesthetic itselfAas ?orked throu!h by Flaubert, liot
and Doyce amon!st othersAhas usually assi!ned the hi!hest de!ree of control to the ?riter, that
of a creator ,residin! over the ?hole of his creation ?hilst not a,,earin! any?here ?ithin it)
/) Dac@ues Derrida, @uoted in Christo,her >orris, Derrida 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8(/6, ,) *2+)
() Roland Barthes, Critical ssays, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5vanston$ >orth?estern "niversity
#ress, &8/*6, ,) *2) This @uotation comes from one of Barthes0s early essays 0.ittLrature
objective0 5#aris, &8326)
8) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0S,eech and #henomena0 and <ther ssays on 9usserl0s Theory of
Si!ns I&84/J, trans) David B) Allison 5vanston$ >orth?estern "niversity #ress, &8/16)
&+) See Claude .Lvi:Strauss, Tristes Tro,i@ues I&833J, trans) Dohn Russell 5.ondon$ 9utchinson,
&8446G Dac@ues .acan, Ucrits$ A Selection I&844J, trans) Alan Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock,
&8//6, ,,) &24P/()
&&) See Ferdinand de Saussure, A Course in =eneral .in!uistics I&8&3J, trans) -) Baskin
5.ondon$ Fontana, &8/26)
&*) The lin!uist Roman Dakobson ,rovides the link here in that his ?ork carries throu!h from his
early association ?ith the %osco? .in!uistic Circle 5he ?as amon!st its co:founders in &8&36 to
#ra!ue Structuralism, and ?as later a seminal influence on .Lvi:Strauss and .acan) 'n fact, had
.Lvi:Strauss not become Misitin! #rofessor at the >e? School for Social Research in >e? Eork
5&82&P36, ?here he ?orked ?ith Dakobson, the develo,ment of critical theory may have taken
si!nificantly different routes) Dakobson0s ideas on meta,hor and metonymyA?hich form the
cornerstone of .acan0s rereadin! of FreudAare ,erha,s best accessible in Roman Dakobson,
0Closin! Statement$ .in!uistics and #oetics0 in Thomas A) Sebeok, ed), Style in .an!ua!e
5Cambrid!e %ass)$ %'T #ress, &84+6)
&1) See Claude .Lvi:Strauss, The lementary Structures of Binshi,, trans) Dames 9arle Bell,
Dohn Richard von Sturmer and Rodney >eedham 5Boston$ Beacon #ress, &8486G Claude .Lvi:
Strauss, Structural Anthro,olo!y, trans) Claire Dacobson and Brooke =rundfest Schoe,t 5.ondon$
Allen .ane, &84/6, ,,) 11P88)
&2) For .acan0s continual unfoldin! of the lin!uisticality of the unconscious, see Ucrits, o,) cit)
&3) See Claude .Lvi:Strauss, Structural Anthro,olo!y, o,) cit), ,) 11) .Lvi:Strauss is here takin!
his lead from >ikolai TroubetFkoy ?hose ,a,er 0.a ,honolo!ie actuQlle0 5#aris, &8116, alon! ?ith
Saussure0s Cours and the te;ts of .Lvi:Strauss, belon!s to the classic and ince,tionary ,hase of
structuralist analysis) TroubetFkoy0s ?ork in ,honolo!y is most readily accessible in >ikolai
TroubetFkoy, #rinci,les of #honolo!y, trans) Christiane A)%) Balta;e 5Berkeley and .os An!eles$
"niversity of California #ress, &8486)
&4) The conce,t of the dissolution of man is ,romul!ated in direct o,,osition to the Sartrian
notions of individuality and dialectical history by .Lvi:Strauss in Claude .Lvi:Strauss, The Sava!e
%ind 5.ondon$ -eidenfeld and >icolson, &8446)
&/) For ,erha,s the first statement of ,oststructural intent, and a vi!orous testament to this
historical turnin!:,oint, see Dac@ues Derrida, 0Structure, Si!n, and #lay in the Discourse of
the 9uman Sciences0 in Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin! and Difference, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$
Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(&6 ,,) */(P81)
&() Roland Barthes, Sade Fourier .oyola, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8//6, ,) ()
&8) %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s$ An Archaeolo!y of the 9uman Sciences, o,) cit), ,)
1(4)
*+) This early t?entieth:century e;clusion of the author ?as certainly a !esture no more drastic
than the critical circumstances by ?hich it ?as ,rovoked) As the Russian Formalist <si, Brik
lamented, Russian literary criticism of the time ?as riddled ?ith 0maniacs ) ) ) ,assionately
seekin! the ans?er to the @uestion 00did #ushkin smoke7O 0 <si, Brik, 0The so:called formal
method0 in .)%) <0Toole and Ann Shukman, eds, Russian #oetics in Translation, 2 5Colchester$
"niversity of sse; #ress, &8//6, ,,) 8+P&$ ,) 8+)
*&) Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,) &2*)
**) %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70, trans) DosuL M) 9arari, in DosuL M) 9arari, ed), Te;tual
Strate!ies$ #ers,ectives in #ost:Structuralist Criticism 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8/86,
,,) &2&P4+$ ,) &21)
*1) Roland Barthes, SKN, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8/36, ,) &2+)
*2) Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,,) &22P3)
*3) Alice A) Dardine, =ynesis$ Confi!urations of -oman and %odernity 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity
#ress, &8(36, ,) 3()
*4) 'n its more radical forms, this resistance ,roduces statements of the order that anti:authorial
discourse is 0a confused and entan!led body of material ?hich, at its most e;treme, enters the
realm of dementia ) ) ) 0Cedric -atts, 0Bottom0s Children$ The Fallacies of Structuralist, #ost:
structuralist and Deconstructionist .iterary Theory0 in .a?rence .erner, ed), Reconstructin!
.iterature 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(16, ,,) *+P13$ ,) **) >aturally, there are e;ce,tions to this
,attern of resistance, ,articularly in the ,henomenolo!ical movement ?ithin ?hich the conce,tion
of the subject differs si!nificantly from traditional humanist conce,tions of authorshi,)
#henomenolo!ical ,ositions ?ill be discussed belo? in the second cha,ter and conclusion)
*/) See Steven Bna,, and -alter Benn %ichaels, 0A!ainst Theory0, in -)D)T) %itchell, ed),
A!ainst Theory$ .iterary Studies and the >e? #ra!matism 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress,
&8(36, ,,) &&P1+) Bna,, and %ichaels0 article ?as ori!inally ,ublished in Critical 'n@uiry vol) ( no)
2 5Summer &8(*6, ,,) /1*P2*, and the lon!:runnin! debate it ,rom,ted is collected in -)D)T)
%itchell, ed), A!ainst Theory, o,) cit) Bna,, and %ichaels0 ideas on intention ?ill be discussed
belo? in the sections 0Doublin! the Te;t0 and 0%isrece,tions0)
*() Des,ite many diver!ences of o,inion on other matters, all ,ra!matists characterise
themselves as o,,osed to theory in one ?ay or another)
*8) As it is, the refusal to debate or contest the ar!uments of theory is u,held as a ,oint of
,rinci,le by many ,ra!matists) Stanley Fish, for e;am,le, ?rites that$ 0Ar!uments a!ainst theory
?ill only kee, it alive, by markin! it as a si!ht of !eneral concern ) ) ) theory0s day is dyin! ) ) )
and, ' think, not a moment too scion)0 Stanley Fish, 0Conse@uences0, in -)D)T) %itchell, ed),
A!ainst Theory, o,) cit), ,,) &+4P1&$ ,) &*() Fish doubtless has in mind here #aul de %an0s
statement of the inesca,ably theoretical nature of ,ra!matist o,,osition to critical theoryAsee
#aul de %an, The Resistance to Theory 5%innea,olis$ "niversity of %innesota #ress, &8(46)
Such a non:combatant ,osition avoids the de %anian counterar!ument that theory is itself its o?n
resistance, but only at the ,otential cost of im,licatin! ,ra!matism in a -itt!ensteinian silence on
the te;ts and methods of theory)
1+) 't may seem, at a certain level, that the arran!ement of these discourses in cha,ters ?hich
deal ?ith individual theorists be!s the @uestion some?hat) 9o?ever, virtually all theorists follo?
this convention and often in te;ts ?hich u,hold the disa,,earance of the author) 9o,efully, in an
ar!ument ?hich seeks to ar!ue for rather than a!ainst the author, this ,rocedure ?ill at least
attain a !reater consistency) The relationshi, of author and oeuvre ?ill be discussed ,assim, as
?ell as that of author and criticKtheorist) Cha,ter <ne$ The Birth <f The Reader
&) -illiam Shakes,eare, Dulius Caesar in Shakes,eare$ Com,lete -orks 5<;ford$ <;ford
"niversity #ress, &8+36, ,,) (*2P23$ ,) (**)
*) 0The Death of the Author0 ?as in fact ?ritten for ,ublication in an American ma!aFine, As,en,
nos) 3 and 4 ?hose editor Brian Docherry ?as invitin! contributions from various distin!uished
names dra?n from the French and American avant:!ardes 5for e;am,le %arcel Ducham,, Alain
Robbe:=rillet, Dohn Ca!e, %erce Cunnin!ham6 on the theme of closin! the !a, bet?een art and
lo? culture) Barthes0s essay thus fitted into this !eneral format in announcin! the end of the elite
fi!ure of the author and ,ro,osin! in its stead a te;tually anonymity free from traditional
hierarchies) The As,en issues ,assed by ?ith very little notice, but a year later Barthes
re,ublished the essay in France as 0.a %ort de l0auteur0, in %antLia M 5&84(6, ?hence it became
one of the classic te;ts of ,oststructuralism) <n the unusual and little:kno?n ori!ins of Barthes0s
te;t, see %olly >esbit, 0-hat -as An Author70, Eale French Studies, /1 5&8(/6, ,,) **8P3/) All
references to the essay ?ill here be made to Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, 'ma!e:
%usic:Te;t, trans) and ed) Ste,hen 9eath 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8//6, ,,) 2*P(, and ,a!e
references are ,rovided ,arenthetically in the te;t)
1) See Roland Barthes, <n Racine, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5>e? Eork$ <cta!on Books, &8//6G
Criticism and Truth, trans) B)#) Beuneman 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(/6) The terms auteurist
and auteurism derive from the French for author 5auteur6 and are ?idely used in cinema criticism
in the conte;t of the auteur theory ?hich asserts that the director, not the screen?riter, is the true
author of any !iven film) As ' ?ill use the term, auteurism denotes any theory or critisism ?hich
centres on the author to the e;clusion of other te;tual forces)
2) See Roland Barthes, SKN, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8/36, ,,) *&&P&*) <ri!inally
,ublished as Roland Barthes, SKN 5#aris$ Seuil, &8/+6)
3) For instance, ?ithout any ,rior or further ar!umentation, Toril %oi ?rites$ 0if ?e are truly to
reject the model of the author as =od the Father of the te;t, it is surely not enou!h to reject the
,atriarchal ideolo!y im,licit in the ,aternal meta,hor) 't is e@ually necessary to reject the critical
,ractice it leads to, a critical ,ractice that relies on the author as the transcendental si!nified of
his or her te;t) For the ,atriarchal critic, the author is the source, ori!in and meanin! of the te;t) 'f
?e are to undo this ,atriarchal ,ractice of authority ?e must take one ste, further and ,roclaim
?ith Roland Barthes the death of the author)0 Toril %oi, Se;ualKTe;tual #olitics$ Feminist .iterary
Theory 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(36, ,,) 4*P1)
4) Cedric -atts, 0Bottom0s Children$ The Fallacies of Structuralist, #ost:structuralist and
Deconstructionist .iterary Theory0 in .a?rence .erner, ed), Reconstructin! .iterature 5<;ford$
Basil Black?ell, &8(16, ,,) *+P13$ ,) *()
/) #aul Taylor, 0%en on the Run and on the %akeKRevie? of %enson!e by %alcolm Bradbury and
Saints and Sinners by Terry a!leton0, The Sunday Times, &1 Se,tember &8(/, #) 38)
() -illiam =ass, 0The Death of the Author0 in 9abitations of the -ord 5>e? Eork$ Simon and
Schuster, &8(36, ,,) *43P(()
8) See Friedrich >ietFsche, The Doyful -isdom, trans) Thomas Common 5dinbur!h$ Foulis,
&8&+6, es,ecially ,,) &4/P8)
&+) For Derrida0s ideas on the transcendental si!nified, see Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y,
trans) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/46, ,assim)
&&) Roland Barthes, <n Racine, o,) cit), ,) &4()
&*) Friedrich >ietFsche, The Doyful -isdom, o,) cit), ,) */4)
&1) Roland Barthes, <n Racine, o,) cit), ,) &/+)
&2) See Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, o,) cit), ,) &34)
&3) See %ikhail Bakhtin, #roblems of Dostoyevsky0s #oetics, trans) R)-) Rotsel 5Ann Arbor,
%ich)$ "niversity of %ichi!an #ress, &8/16 for this conce,tion of the dialo!ic author of the modern
,oly,honic novel) Some of the im,lications of Bakhtin0s ?ork for author:theory ?ill be considered
belo?)
&4) <si, Brik, 0The so:called formal method0 in .)%) <0Toole and Ann Shokman, eds), Russian
#oetics in Translation 2 5Colchester$ "niversity of sse; #ress, &8//6, ,, 8+P&$ ,) 8+) For a
%ar;ist e;tension of this artisanal ,icture of authorshi, see -alter Benjamin, 0The Author as
#roducer0 in -alter Benjamin, "nderstandin! Brecht, trans) Anna Bostock 5.ondon$ >B., &8/16,
,,) (3P&+&)
&/) The ,henomenolo!ical auteurism of =eor!es #oulet mi!ht be such a case in ,oint) 9o?ever,
Barthes is not here concerned ?ith s,ecific instances, but rather ?ith critical attitudes !enerally)
The ,henomenolo!ical ,osition on the author ?ill be discussed at some len!th belo? in the
second cha,ter and conclusion, ?here it ?ill be ar!ued that ?hilst the the transcendental subject
of ,henomenolo!y is undoubtedly deist, it is more so in the manner of the deus absconditus than
that of the omni,resent author)
&() 0The Author, ?hen believed in, is al?ays conceived of as the ,ast of his o?n book$ book and
author stand automatically on a sin!le line divided into a before and an after) The Author is
thou!ht to nourish the book, ?hich is to say that he e;ists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in
the same relation of antecedence to his ?ork as a father is to his child)0 Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:
%usic:Te;t, o,) cit), ,) &23)
&8) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak, 0Translator0s #reface to <f =rammatolo!y0 in Dac@ues Derrida, <f
=rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,,) i;Pl;;;vii$ ,) l;;iv)
*+) The ,hrase 0monster of totality0 is taken from Barthes) See Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes
by Roland Barthes, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ %acmillan, &8//6, ,) &/8)
*&) -illiam =ass, The -orld -ithin the -ord 5>e? Eork$ Alfred A) Bno,f 'nc), &8/86, ,) 14)
**) See Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,) &22)
*1) Roland Barthes, SKN o,) cit), ,,) *&&P&*)
*2) See ibid), ,,) *&+P&&)
*3) Roland Barthes, The #leasure of the Te;t, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8/46, ,)
*/)
*4) 'bid)
*/) Roland Barthes, Sade Fourier .oyola, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8//6, ,,) (P8)
<ri!inally ,ublished as Sade, Fourier, .oyola 5#aris$ Uditions de Seuil, &8/&6)
*() Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, o,) cit), ,) &4&)
*8) Boris Tomaschevsky, 0.iterature and Bio!ra,hy0 in .adislav %atejka and Brystyna #omorska,
eds, Readin!s in Russian #oetics$ Formalist and Structuralist Mie?s 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ %'T
#ress, &8/&6, ,,) 2/P33$ ,) 3+)
1+) %ichel Foucault, in %ichel Foucault, ed), ' #ierre RiviQre, havin! slau!htered my mother, my
sister and my brother ) ) ) $ A Case of #arricide in the &8th Century, trans) Frank Dellinek 5>e?
Eork$ #antheon Books, &8/36, ,) *+8)
1&) TFvetan Todorov, @uoted in Ann Defferson and David Robey, %odern .iterary Theory$ A
Com,arative 'ntroduction 5.ondon$ Batsford, &8(26, ,,) 8(P8)
1*) #aul de %an, The Rhetoric of Romanticism 5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(26, ,)
48)
11) <n the theme of the 0hos,itality0 of the critic see D) 9illis %iller, 0The Critic as 9ost0 in 9arold
Bloom et al), Deconstruction and Criticism 5>e? Eork$ Seabury, #ress, &8/86, ,,) *&/P31)
12) See Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,) &24)
13) Roland Barthes, Sade Fourier .oyola, o,) cit) ,) 1) All subse@uent ,a!e references for citation
are !iven ,arenthetically ?ithin the te;t)
14) See ibid), ,,) (/P()
1/) Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,) &24)
1() 'n a ?ay, Sade Fourier .oyola can be seen to continue the ,roject of Lcriture blanche so
hauntin!ly ,ro,osed in -ritin! De!ree NeroAsee Roland Barthes, -ritin! De!ree Nero, trans)
Annette .avers and Colin Smith 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &84/6) Barthes had here ar!uedA,ace .ukacs
and SartreAthat ?ritin! realises its true ,olitical status throu!h its formal and stylistic structures$
the manner rather than the content of ?hat is ?ritten constitutes its ,ra;is) The dream of the
Lcrivain is to break ?ith the lan!ua!e of his time, to evolve a colourless ?ritin! devolved of
ideolo!y, cleansed of institutional traces) Such a @uest involves an absolute ,ur!ation of the
encratic bour!eois lan!ua!e, since to break ?ith the values of a society is most im,ortantly to
break ?ith its modes of e;,ression) 9o?ever, -ritin! De!ree Nero, so
full of ,romise and ,ros,ect for the future of ?ritin! finally ,resents the Lcrivain as the unha,,iest
of consciousnesses, and the dream of Lcriture blanche as condemned in advance) very
assertion of freedom invariably falls ,rey to the snares of recu,eration) 'm,elled by 9istory to a
commitment he cannot make, forced to choose bet?een modes of ?ritin! that are destined to be
classicised, the modern ?riter is forever cau!ht on the ?ron! side of both freedom and necessity)
-hat Sade Fourier .oyola ,resents, by contrast, are ?riters ?ho have indeed succeeded in
ste,,in! out of the lan!ua!es of their times, anchorite fi!ures ?ho have defended their te;ts
a!ainst the incursion of the lan!ua!e of the other) "nlike Lcriture 5as understood by -ritin!
De!ree Nero6 lo!othesis is not obli!ed to use the lan!ua!e of social reality a!ainst societyG rather,
like the lan!ua!e of madness, it rejects the sociolect, it becomes sui !eneris)
18) 't mi!ht be maintained that the lo!othete stays ?ithin lan!ua!e, and that it is only the
trans!ressive ,o?er of his reconfi!urations and 0theatricalisin!0 of the ,re:e;istent system that
!ives to his te;t the a,,earance of a ne? lan!ua!e) But Sade Fourier .oyola does not say this$
nothin! of the earlier ,osition can be recu,erated from this de,iction) 'f Sade, Fourier and .oyola
remain ?ithin lan!ua!e as inscribed subjects then they do so at its outermost limit$ the lo!othete
?ill not dei!n to s,eak any lan!ua!e not uni@uely his o?n) 9e does ?hat 0The Death of the
Author0 claimed no ?riter could doAthat is, to e;orcise the anterior lan!ua!e and sta!e an
entirely hermetic and idiorhythmic scene of ?ritin!)
2+) Roland Barthes, -ritin! De!ree Nero, o,) cit), ,) *3)
2&) 'bid), ,) &4) Also in 0From -ork to Te;t0 Batches ?rote$ 09o? do you classify a ?riter like
=eor!es Bataille7 >ovelist, ,oet, essayist, economist, ,hiloso,her, mystic7 The ans?er is so
difficult that the literary manuals !enerally ,refer to for!et about Bataille ?ho, in fact, ?rote te;ts,
,erha,s continuously one sin!le te;t0)ARoland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, o,) cit), ,) &3/)
Barthes himself, like Bataille, like Bierke!aard and >ietFsche, is the most ,rotean of ?riters, yet
neverthelessAor ,erha,s because of thisAhe attracts more oeuvre:centred readin!s than any
other ,ost:?ar uro,ean ?riter) Steven "n!ar in Roland Barthes$ the #rofessor of Desire
5.incoln, >ebraska$ "niversity of >ebraska #ress, &8(16 introduces Barthes0s adolescent
,astiche on Socrates to the canon, and sees in it the first ste, on the lon! road to Barthes0s last
?orks) Roland Cham,a!ne too ?ill utilise this ,iece of juvenilia, and ar!ue that the 0ne?
humanism0 outlined in -ritin! De!ree Nero is the !round traversed in the @uarter:century that
se,arates it from Barthes0s inau!ural address to the Colle!e of France in &8//Asee Roland
Cham,a!ne, .iterary 9istory in the -ake of Roland Barthes$ Re:definin! the %yths of Reality
5Alabama$ Summa #ublications 'nc), &8(26) For Annette .avers there is a Barthesian 0voya!e0A
see Annette .avers, Roland Barthes$ Structuralism and After 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(*6) Tim
Clark, revie?in! .avers0s book in an article called 0Roland Barthes$ Dead and Alive0, challen!es
the notion of the Barthesian oeuvre) "nfortunately, as ?ith most 5,erha,s all6 res,onses of this
sort, he flits about bet?een Barthes0s te;ts establishin! ?hat amounts to the oeuvre0s objection to
the notion of the oeuvre, a ,rocedure in ?hich the !reater consistency remains on .avers0s side)
See Tim Clark, 0Roland Barthes$ Dead and Alive0, <;ford .iterary Revie?, vol) 4, no) & 5&8(16, ,,)
8/P&+/)
2*) Roland Barthes, %ichelet, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(/6, ,) 1)
21) See Boris Tomaschevsky, 0.iteracure and Bio!ra,hy0, o,) cit), ,) 33)
22) Friedrich >ietFsche, The #hiloso,hy of >ietFsche, ed) Dohn Clive 5>e? Eork$ %entor, &8436,
,) &2*)
23) Roland Barthes, Camera .ucida$ Reflections on #hoto!ra,hy, trans) Richard 9o?ard
5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(*6, ,) 1+)
24) SKN, thou!h it certainly marks the movement to?ard a ,oststructuralist or deconstructive
a,,roach, is still cau!ht ?ithin certain structuralist ,resu,,ositions, viF its insistence that the
literary te;t can be e;haustively reconstituted via the five or!anisin! codes)
2/) 0Sade '0 ?as in fact ,ublished in the same year that 0The Death of the Author0 ?as ?ritten) 't
a,,eared in Tel Ruel, *( 5-inter &84/6 under the title 0.0 Arbre du crime0)
2() Those ?ho do ali!ht here do so only briefly, and often ,ass over the idea of the lo!othete
com,letely) And ?hen the idea of the lo!othete is addressed 5as here under the im,eratives of a
revie? article6 a distin!uished theorist can ,roclaim, in the face of all that Sade Fourier
.oyola says and does$ 0The author is no more than a mythic narrator to ?hom ?e attribute the
meanin!s that successive !enerations have found in his te;t)0 %ichael Riffaterre, 0Sade or Te;t as
Fantasy70, Diacritics, vol) *, no) 1 5&8/&6, ,,) *P8$ ,) 1) And the sole basis for this in the te;t7 A
footnote in ?hich Barthes makes the common,lace observation that Sade cannot be held
res,onsible for the effects his te;ts have had since he could not divine their destiny) 512, n) *&6
Contrari?ise, on the fe? occasions ?hen lo!othesis is !iven a fair hearin!, 0The Death of the
Author0 is no?here to be found) Roland Cham,a!ne !ives some s,ace to the lo!othete, but only
at the ,rice of utterly su,,ressin! 0The Death of the Author0) Roland Cham,a!ne, .iterary 9istory
in the -ake of Roland Barthes, o,) cit) The same refusal to countenance this contradiction
bet?een 0The Death of the Author0 and Sade Fourier .oyola is to be found throu!hout the
secondary literature that has develo,ed around Barthes in An!lo:American criticism)
28) AndrL =ide, @uoted in Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, o,) cit, ,) 81)
3+) Roland Barthes, 0The Death of the Author0, o,) cit), ,) &21)
3&) Roland Barthes, The =rain of the Moice$ 'ntervie?s &84*P&8(+, trans) .inda Coverdale
5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(+6, ,) 12()
3*) Toril %oi, Se;ualKTe;tual #olitics, o,) cit), ,) ()
31) 'bid), ,a 41)
32) <n chan!in! historical attitudes to authorshi,, see A)D) %innis, %edieval Theory of
Authorshi,$ Scholastic .iterary Attitudes in the .ater %iddle A!es 5.ondon$ Scolar #ress, &8(26)
33) Roland Barthes, SKN, o,) cit), ,) &/2)
34) mile Nola, @uoted in Dohn 9os,ers, %eanin! and Truth in the Arts 5Cha,el 9ill$ "niversity of
>orth Carolina #ress, &8246, ,) &24)
3/) As indeed Barthes had done in his study of %ichelet0s history:?ritin!, ,referrin! to see it as
0an or!anised net?ork of obsessions0 rather than as the de,iction of any historical realityARoland
Barthes, %ichelet, o,) cit), ,) 1)
3() See Dac@ues .acan, 0Seminar on OThe #urloined .etter0 O, trans) Deffrey %ehlman, Eale
French, Studies no) 2( 5&8/*6, ,,) 1(P/*G Dac@ues Derrida, 0.e Facteur de MeritL0, The #ost
Card$ From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans) Alan Bass 5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of
Chica!o #ress, &8(/6, ,,) 2&&P84G and Barbara Dohnson 0The Frame of Reference0 in =eoffrey
9artman, ed), #sychoanalysis and the Ruestion of the Te;t 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity
#ress, &8/(6, ,,) &28P/&)
38) Roland Barthes, SKN, o,) cit), ,) &1)
4+) The ,hrase 0addin! ,itiful !raffiti to an immense ,oem0 is one Dac@ues Derrida uses to
describe his o?n readin! of dmund DabQs) See Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin! and Difference, trans)
Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(&6, ,) /2)
4&) Roland Barthes, SKN, o,) cit), ,) *&4)
4*) 'bid), ,) *&&
41) 'bid), ,) vii)
42) %ikhail Bakhtin, @uoted in Dulia Bristeva, Desire in .an!ua!e$ A Semiotic A,,roach to
.iterature and Art, ed) .)S) RoudieF 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(26)
43) %ikhail Bakhtin, @uoted in TFvetan Todorov, %ikhail Bakhtin$ The Dialo!ic #rinci,le, trans)
-lad =odFich 5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity #ress, &8(26, ,) &+4)
44) %ikhail Bakhtin, #roblems of Dostoyevsky0s #oetics, o,) cit), ,) 2)
4/) Bristeva0s conce,tion of the semiotic and the symbolic o?es much to .acan0s distinction
bet?een the ima!inary and symbolic re!isters ?hich is discussed in the second cha,ter belo?)
For Bristeva0s revision of Bakhtin0s ?ork see Dulia Bristeva, Desire in .an!ua!e$ A Semiotic
A,,roach to .iterature and Art, o,) cit) 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(+6, ,,) 42P(8)
4() >aturally, many invaluable readin!s, and fine cultural and ideolo!ical insi!hts ?ere arrived at
in this manner, but the justification for the structuralist inter,retation lay in the ,o?er and
ori!inality of these readin!s not in the 0truth0 of the death of the subject)
48) As "mberto co says of the related science of semiotics$ 0Semiosis is the ,rocess by ?hich
em,irical subjects communicate, communication ,rocesses bein! made ,ossible by the
or!anisation of si!nification systems) m,irical subjects, from a semiotic ,oint of vie?, can only
be defined and isolated as manifestations of this double 5systematic and ,rocessual6
as,ect of semiosis) This is not a meta,hysical statement, but a methodolo!ical oneG ,hysics
kno?s Caesar and Brutus as s,atio:tem,oral events defined by an interrelationshi, of elementary
,articles and must not be concerned ?ith the motivation of their acts, nor ?ith ethical evaluation
of the result of these acts) Semiosis treats subjects of semiosic acts in the same ?ay$ either they
can be defined in terms of semiotic structures orAfrom this ,oint of vie?Athey do not e;ist at all)0
"mberto co, A Theory of Semiotics 5Bloomin!ton and .ondon$ 'ndiana "niversity #ress, &8/46,
,) 1&3) Semiotic theory has thus sho?n itself more ?illin! than structuralism to acce,t that it
o,erates only ?ithin a certain area ?hich it has itself demarcated and defined) The e;clusion of
the s,eakin! subject o,erates much like the e;clusion of author and human subject in 5,ost6
structuralist theories, but ?ith the difference that for the semiotician it is o,enly ackno?led!ed as
a ,oint of method rather than dis!uised as a descri,tion of the entire discursive field) The
absence of the subject, as co su!!ests, is true only to the e;tent that it is re@uired in order that
the semiotic science may be founded and elaborated) And as co is ?ell a?are, the ,roblem of
the s,eakin! subject is not abolished by semiotic theory, butA@uite to the contraryAone ?hose
confrontation is beyond the reach of any e;tant semiotic in@uiry)
/+) The influential fictions of the South American ma!ical realists may seem to ,rima facie
contradict this !eneral trend, but only on the basis of a conce,t of re,resentation ?hich has little if
anythin! in common ?ith the ethos of traditional realism) 'ndeed, here and in many other literary,
artistic and cultural conte;ts, the current trend seems to be to attem,t to create rather than
re,resent 0realities0)
/&) See Dohn 9os,ers, %eanin! and Truth in the Arts, o,) cit)
/*) Roland Barthes, <n Racine, o,) cit), ,) &/&)
/1) Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, o,) cit), ,) &4() <ri!inally ,ublished as Roland Barthes
,ar Roland Barthes 5#aris$ Uditions du Seuil, &8/36) All subse@uent ,a!e references are !iven
,arenthetically in the te;t)
/2) Dor!e .uis Bor!es, 0Bor!es and '0, .abyrinths 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/+6, ,,)
*(*P1$ ,) *(*)
/3) 'bid)
/4) 'bid)
//) 'bid), ,,) *(*P1)
/() %ikhail Bakhtin, @uoted in TFvetan Todorov, %ikhail Bakhtin, o,) cit), ,) 3*)
/8) %ichel de %ontai!ne, ssays, trans) D)%) Cohen 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &83(6, ,)
*13) For a ,eerless analysis of %ontai!ne and the autobio!ra,hical, see rich Auerbach,
%imesis$ The Re,resentation of Reality in -estern .iterature, trans) -illiam R) Trask 5#rinceton$
#rinceton "niversity #ress, &8316, ,,) *(3P1&+)
(+) See Saint Au!ustine, Confessions, trans) 9enry Chad?ick 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress,
&88&6)
(&) See Dames Doyce, A #ortrait of the Artist as a Eoun! %an, in 9arry .evin, ed), The ssential
Dames Doyce 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8416)
(*) <n the role of time and memory in the autobio!ra,hical act, see Dames <lney, 0Some
Mersions of %emoryKSome Mersions of Bios$ The <ntolo!y of Autobio!ra,hy0, in Dames <lney,
ed), Autobio!ra,hy$ ssays Theoretical and Critical 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &8(+6,
,,) *14P4/) As <lney ?ell ar!ues, the situation of the subject ?ithin a timeless ,resent serves to
close any !a, bet?een the autobio!ra,hical subject of the utterance and the subject of the
enunciation)
(1) Mictor Shklovsky, 0Sterne0s Tristam Shandy$ Stylistic Commentary0 in .ee T) .emon and
%arion D) Reis, eds, Russian Formalist Criticism$ Four ssays, ,,) *3P3/$ ,) 3/)
(2) Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther$ <tobio!ra,hy, Transference, Translation$ Te;ts and
Discussions ?ith Dac@ues Derrida, trans) #e!!y Bamuf and Avital Ronell 5>e? Eork$ Schoken
Books, &8(46, ,,) 22P3)
(3) 'bid), ,,) 3P4)
(4) 0Style is al?ays a secretG but the occult as,ect of its im,lications does not arise from the
mobile and ever:,rovisional nature of lan!ua!eG its secret is recollection locked in the body of the
?riter ) ) ) a kind of su,ra:literary o,eration ?hich carries man to the threshold of
,o?er and ma!ic) By reason of its biolo!ical ori!in, style resides outside art, outside the ,act
?hich binds the ?riter to society)0 Roland Barthes, -ritin! De!ree Nero, o,) cit), ,) &()
(/) Friedrich >ietFsche, cce 9omo$ 9o? <ne Becomes -hat <ne 's, trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/86) <n the >ietFschean ,hiloso,hy of the body, see also
Thus S,oke Narathustra$ A Book for veryone and >o <ne, trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &84&6, ,,) 4&P1) For Barthes0s declaration of the >ietFschean
influence, see Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes, o,) cit), ,) &23)
(() Roland Barthes, The #leasure of the Te;t, o,) cat), ,) &/)
(8) See Roland Cham,a!ne, .iterary 9istory in the -ake of Roland Barthes, o,) cit), ,,) /8P&+&)
8+) 'bid), ,) 8/G Roland Barthes, Sade Fourier .oyola, o,) cit), ,) 8)
8&) =abriel Dosi,ovici develo,s the ele!ant thesis that Barthes sou!ht to create a #roustian ?ork
of art in later years, but ?as frustrated by his essential distrust of the ?orld of si!ns) See =abriel
Dosi,ovici, 0The BalFac of %) Barthes and the BalFac of %) de =uermantes0 in .a?rence .erner,
ed), Reconstructin! .iterature 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(16, ,,) (&P&+3)
8*) Susan Sonta!, in her introduction to Roland Barthes, A Barthes Reader,, ed) Susan Sonta!
5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(*6, ,) ;;;vin) See also, Susan Sonta!, 0Rememberin! Barthes0, in "nder the
Si!n of Saturn 5>e? Eork$ Farrar Straus =irou;, &8(+6, ,,) &48P//)
81) Susan Sonta!, @uoted in #hili, Thody, Roland Barthes$ A Conservative stimate 5.ondon$
%acmillan, &8//6, ,) &2*)
82) 9arold Bloom, A!on$ To?ard a Theory of Revisionism 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ <;ford
"niversity #ress, &8(*6, ,) 2()
83) See <scar -ilde, 0The Critic as Artist0, Com,lete -orks of <scar -ilde 5.ondon and
=las!o?$ Collins, &82(6, ,,) &++8P38)
Cha,ter T?o$ The Author And The Death <f %an
&) %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s$ An Archaeolo!y of the 9uman Sciences, trans) Alan
Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/+6) <ri!inally ,ublished as .es mots et les choses$ un
archLolo!ie des sciences humaines 5#aris$ =allimard, &8446) #a!e references are made
,arenthetically ?ithin the te;t)
*) See %ichel Foucault, %adness and CiviliFation$ A 9istory of 'nsanity in the A!e of Reason,
trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &84/6)
1) 0Thou!ht0 here is usedAas it is Foucault0s te;tAto denote the thou!ht of the human sciences,
and of the humanities in !eneral) Foucault occasionally dra?s the science of mathematics and
,hysics into his discussion of the Classical era, thou!h, ?ithin his account of modernity, he is
obviously not su!!estin! that the hard sciences ,artake of the e,istemic 5i)e) anthro,omor,hic6
confi!uration)
2) See %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,,) 12+P&) The <rder of Thin!s be!an as
an introduction to Bant0s Anthro,olo!y, and this mi!ht e;,lain in ,art ?hy Foucault ,uts )such
undue em,hasis on the anthro,olo!ical in Bant0s ?ork) The anthro,olo!ical concern is not to be
found else?here in the Bantian ,hiloso,hy) 'ndeed Bant is concerned to stress that this, his last
?ork, is of a mar!inal and occasional nature, and to be re!arded as @uite distinct from
transcendental idealism) See 'mmanuel Bant, Anthro,olo!y From A #ra!matic #oint of Mie?,
trans) %ary D) =re!or 5The 9a!ue$ %artinus >ijhoff, &8/26)
3) See %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,,) 1&(P13) For a clear account of the
anthro,olo!ical doubles see 9ubert .) Dreyfus and #aul Rabino?, %ichel Foucault$ Beyond
Structuralism and 9ermeneutics 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(*6, ,,) 12P21
4) Dames %) die, 0Sartre as #henomenolo!ist and as ;istentialist #sychoanalyst0, in d?ard >)
.ee and %aurice %andelbaum, eds, #henomenolo!y and ;istentialism, 5Baltimore$ Dohns
9o,kins "niversity #ress, &84/6, ,,) &18P/($ ,) &2*)
/) %ichel Foucault, The <rder Thin!s, o, cit), ,) ;iv)
() See %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,,) 3*P4)
8) 0The relation of all kno?led!e to the mathesis is ,osited as the ,ossibility of establishin! an
ordered succession bet?een thin!s, even non:measurable ones) 'n this sense, analysis ?as very
@uickly to ac@uire the value of a universal methodG and the .eibniFian ,roject of establishin! a
mathematics of @ualitative orders is situated at the very heart of Classical thou!htG its !ravitational
centre) But, on the other hand, this relation to the mathesis as a !eneral science of order does
not si!nify that kno?led!e is absorbed into mathematics, or that the latter becomes the
foundation for all ,ossible kno?led!eG on the contrary, in correlation ?ith the @uest for a mathesis,
?e ,erceive the a,,earance of a certain number of em,irical fields no? bein! formed and defined
for the very first time) 'n none of these, or almost none, is it ,ossible to find any trace of
mechanism or mathematicisationG and yet they all rely for their foundation u,on a ,ossible
science of order) Althou!h they ?ere all de,endent u,on analysis in !eneral, their ,articular
instrument ?as not the al!ebraic method but the system of si!ns)0 %ichel Foucault, The <rder of
Thin!s, o,) cit), ,) 3/)
&+) >o account is taken of the consideration that the formulariesACartesian or >e?tonianAfor a
science of order mi!ht be trans,osed onto the ,lanes of !eneral !rammar, natural history, and
the analysis of ?ealth, or at least, that the ,rom,tin!s to?ard such an order mi!ht derive in ,art
from the Cartesian rationalism) -hile Foucault is un@uestionably correct in sayin! that 0this
relation to the mathesis in !eneral does not si!nify that kno?led!e is absorbed into mathematics0
5The <rder of Thin!s, ,) 3/6, the relation itselfA,otent and hierarchicalisedAremains bet?een a
,rimary mathematical model and a derived analysis ?ithin Foucault0s very account itself) >or is
there any reason ?hy the Cartesian mathematics and >e?tonian mechanics should not have
,layed a dominant ,art in the constitution of the classical science of order even if the subse@uent
em,irical sciences are irreducible to mathematics and mechanism) Foucault seems here to be
erectin! a forcefield bet?een mathematical and verbal discourses ?hich ?ould seem to contradict
the cross:disci,linary coherencies of the e,istemic continuum)
&&) See RenL Descartes, The Discourse on %ethod and the %editations, trans) F)) Sutcliffe
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &84(6, ,) 84)
&*) 'bid), ,) &+1)
&1) 'bid), ,,) &&1P1&) For a brief and clear account of this ar!ument, see D)9) 9ick, Ar!uments for
the ;istence of =od 5.ondon$ %acmillan, &8/+6, ,,) /8P(1)
&2) 'bid), ,, &4*)
&3) >o adherence to the re,resentational theory of ideas isG to be found in the %editations) 't is
s,eculated that Descartes mi!ht else?here have subscribed to this theory, but no decisive
evidence e;ists in su,,ort of this claim) For a statement of this contention, see Richard )
A@uila0s introduction to his Re,resentational %ind 5Bloomin!ton$ 'ndiana "niversity #ress, &8(16)
't may of course be countered that lan!ua!e is the one re,resentation that Descartes does not
seem to doubt, but the entire re,resentational function of lan!ua!e is sus,ended ?ithin
hy,erbolic doubt) <nly the ,erformative 5that is non:constative, non:re,resentational6 as,ect of
the co!ito ,ro,ositionA0' am, ' e;ist, is necessarily true, every time ' e;,ress it or conceive of it in
my mind0A!uarantees the e;istence of the meditatin! subject)
&4) The ontolo!ical ar!ument, ?hich states, at its baldestA=od is a ,erfect bein!, e;istence is a
,erfection, therefore =od e;istsAmakes no recourse toAa ,osteriori jud!ements) Descartes also
for?ards other non:em,irical ,roofs in the 0Third %editation0, a!ain refusin! the Thomistic
ar!uments that =od re,resents himself to us in the ?orld of a,,earances) See RenL Descartes,
The Discourse on %ethod and the %editations, o,) cit), ,,) &&1P1&)
&/) dmund 9usserl, Cartesian %editations$ An 'ntroduction to #henomenolo!y, trans) D) Cairns
5The 9a!ue$ %artinus >ijhoff, &84+6, ,) &)
&() And, naturally, Foucault no?here doubts that the thou!ht of Descartes belon!s to the
Classical e,isteme) See %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,,) 3&P4)
&8) Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card$ From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans) Alan Bass
5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6, ,) 1+3)
*+) For a challen!e to Foucault0s ,resentation of the Renaissance, see =eor!e 9u,,ert,
0Divinatio et ruditio$ Thou!hts on Foucault0, 9istory and Theory, &1 5&8/26, ,,) &8&P*+/)
*&) See David 9ume, A Treatise of 9uman >ature 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8/(6, Book &,
#t)'M, ,,) *3&P41) 9ume concludes$ 0all the nice and subtile @uestions concernin! ,ersonal
identity can never ,ossibly be decided, and are to be re!arded rather as !rammatical rather than
,hiloso,hical difficulties) 'dentity de,ends u,on the relation of ideasG and these
relations ,roduce identity, by means of that easy transition they occasion) But as the relations,
and the easiness of the transition may diminish by insensible de!rees, ?e can have no just
standard by ?hich ?e can decide any dis,ute concernin! the time ?hen they ac@uire or lose a
title to the name of identity) All the dis,utes concernin! the identity of connected objects are
merely verbal, e;ce,t so far as the relation of ,arts !ives me to some fiction or ima!inary
,rinci,le of union, as ?ee have already observ0d)0 5*4*6 9erein 9ume demonstrates that not only
?as the @uestion of man at issue ,rior to Bant, but that it also admitted of severe sce,ticism lon!
before >ietFsche, or Foucault, took arms a!ainst anthro,olo!ism)
**) Ral,h -aldo merson, Selections from Ral,h -aldo merson, ed) Ste,hen ) -hicher
5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ Riverside #ress, &83/6, ,) &/*)
*1) Friedrich >ietFsche, The Doyful -isdom, trans) Thomas Common 5dinbur!h$ Foulis, &8&+6,
,,) &4(P8)
*2) David Carroll, 0The Subject of Archaeolo!y or the Soverei!nty of the ,isteme0, %odern
.an!ua!e >otes 81, no) 2 5%ay &8/(6, ,,) 483P/**)
*3) See =)-)F) 9e!el, The #hiloso,hy of -orld 9istory, trans) 9)B) >isbet 5Cambrid!e$
Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8/36) For 9e!el, the four a!es of ?orld history are$ the <riental,
the =reek, the Roman and the =ermanic eras) 'nterestin!ly, this last and final era is that of
subjectivity) Foucault is al?ays concerned to deny the e;istence of any 9e!elian residues in his
?ork, even !oin! so far as to make the unconvincin! claim that he has learned more about the
nature of modern discourse from Cuvier, Bo,,, and Ricardo than from Bant or 9e!elAsee %ichel
Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,) 1+/) Attentive readers of this te;t ?ill note the
recurrence of 9e!elian 5and Bantian6 motifs, even if una?are that Foucault0s !reat mentor ?as
none other than the French 9e!elian, Dean 9y,,olite)
*4) For Foucault, dialectic and anthro,olo!y are al?ays 0intermin!led0, arisin! to!ether at the
be!innin! of the nineteenth century and destined to disa,,ear to!ether at the close of the modern
e,isteme) Conse@uently, the end of anthro,olo!y ?ill be coincident ?ith the end of dialectic) See
%ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,,) *4*P41)
*/) For e;am,le, the Bantian transcendental subject met ?ith strenuous o,,osition from both
Scho,enhauer and >ietFsche) See Arthur Scho,enhauer, The -orld as -ill and Re,resentation,
vol) &, trans) )D)F) #ayne 5>e? Eork$ Dover #ublications, &8486, ,,) 2&1P312G Friedrich
>ietFsche, The -ill to #o?er, trans) -alter Baufmann and R)D) 9ollin!dale 5>e? Eork$ Minta!e
Books, &84(6, ,,) *4/P/&)
*() Friedrich >ietFsche, Thus S,ake Narathustra$ A Book for veryone and >o <ne, trans) R)D)
9ollin!dale 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8486, ,) 2&)
*8) Friedrich >ietFsche, The Birth of Tra!edy and the =enealo@y of %orals, trans) Francis
=olffin! 5>e? Eork$ Doubleday, &8346, ,) &//)
1+) Friedrich >ietFsche, Thus S,ake Narathustra, o,) cit), ,) *14)
1&) 0.et me s,eak to them of ?hat is most contem,tible$ but that is the last man ) ) ) The earth
has become small, and on it ho,s the last man ?ho makes everythin! small) 9is race is as
ineradicable as the flea:beetleG the last man lives lon!est)0 Friedrich >ietFsche, Thus S,ake
Narathustra, trans) -alter Baufmann 5>e? Eork$ Mikin! Books, &8446, ,) *1) ' use Baufmann0s
translation here in fidelity to The <rder of Thin!s0 use of the ,hrase 0last man0) 9ollin!dale0s
translation is still less ,ro,itious to Foucault0s ,ur,oses$ 0BeholdT ' shall sho? you the "ltimate
%an ) ) ) The earth has become small, and on it ho,s the "ltimate %an, ?ho makes everythin!
small) 9is race is as ine;terminable as the fleaG the "ltimate %an lives lon!est)0 5246
1*) For e;am,le, see David B) Alison, ed), The >e? >ietFsche 5>e? Eork$ Dell, &8//6G Daniel
<09ara, ed) -hy >ietFsche >o?7 5Bloomin!ton$ 'ndiana "niversity, #ress, &8(36G Stanley
Corn!old, The Fate of the Self$ =erman, -riters and French Theory 5>e? Eork$ Columbia
"niversity #ress, &8(46)
11) 'n the earliest days of the anthro,olo!ical era %ar; ?as still able to declare that the subject is
0the merest va,ourin!s of idealism0$ 0The individuals, ?ho are no lon!er subject to the division of
labour, have been conceived by ,hiloso,hers as an ideal, under the name 00%anO)
They have conceived the ?hole ,rocess, ?hich ?e have outlined as the evolutionary ,rocess of
O%anO, so that at every historical sta!e O%anO ?as substituted for the individuals and sho?n as
the motive force of history ) ) ) Throu!h this inversion, ?hich from the first is an abstract ima!e of
the actual conditions, it ?as ,ossible to transform the ?hole of history into an evolutionary
,rocess of consciousness)0 Barl %ar;, The =erman 'deolo!y ' 5.ondon$ .a?rence and -ishart,
&8/+6, ,,) (2P3) %ar;ism, ?e recall, is said to have introduced 0no real discontinuity0, yet here,
over a century earlier, %ar; announces the radical archaeolo!ical thesis that man is not an
aeterna veritas, that he arose as the result of certain historical ,ressures) Such statements, and
this as,ect of %ar;ism, should ,rove invaluable to a ?ork concerned ?ith the emer!ence and the
disa,,earance of man but for the fact that they entirely contradict the archaeolo!ical theses that
man ?as born at the end of the ei!hteenth century, and that it ?as not ,ossible to think beyond
man in the nineteenth century) -e mi!ht find some e;,lanation here of ?hy %ar; is so ri!orously
e;cluded from The <rder of Thin!s, ?hen in so many other of the Foucauldian te;ts he is
,resented as a !reat ,recursor of modern discourse) The conce,t of e,isteme mi!ht ?ithstand
the introduction of one meta:e,istemic author, but the introduction of t?o nineteenth:century
thinkers ?ho think beyond the universal conditions of discourse can only have the effect of
critically underminin! the inte!rity of these e,istemolo!ical fields)
12) %ichel Foucault, %adness and CiviliFation, o,) cit) ,) */()
13) See %ichel Foucault) The Birth of the Clinic, trans) Alan Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/16,
,) &8/) ven Foucault0s later ?ork on carceral and ,unitive institutions ?ould seem to take its
directions from the analysis in >ietFsche0s =enealo!y of the ori!ins of morality in torture and
,unishment) See Friedrich >ietFsche, The Birth of Tra!edy and The =enealo!y of %orals, o,)
cit), ,,) &(8P*1+)
14) %ichel Foucault, .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice$ Selected ssays and 'ntervie?s, ed)
Donald F) Bouchard, trans) Donald F) Bouchard and Sherry Simon 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell,
&8//6, ,) 11)
1/) 'bid), ,) 1()
1() 'bid), ,) &43G ,) &84)
18) The Archaeolo!y of Bno?led!e, trans) A) %) Sheridan Smith 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/*6, ,)
*+8
2+) For DeleuFe0s inter,retation of Foucault, see =iles DeleuFe, Foucault, trans) Sean 9and
5.ondonG Athlone #ress, &8((6)
2&) See %ichel Foucault, 0A #reface to Trans!ression0, in .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice,
o,) cit), ,,) *8P3*G 0<f <ther S,aces0, Diacritics, vol &4, no) & 5S,rin! &8(46, ,,) **P/)
2*) This ,a,er ?as ori!inally delivered to the SociLtL franSaise de #hiloso,hie in February &848
Asee %ichel Foucault, 0Ru0est:ce @u0un auteur70, Bulletin de la SociLtL franSaise de #hiloso,hie,
41 5&8486, ,,) /1P&+2Aa translation of ?hich, by Donald Bouchard, is included in .an!ua!e,
Counter:%emory, #ractice, o,) cit), ,,) &&1P1() A revised version of this ,a,er ?as ,resented by
Foucault at a conference at S">E:Buffalo, and has since been translated by DosuL M) 9arari as
0-hat is an Author0 in DosuL M) 9arari, ed), Te;tual Strate!ies$ #ers,ectives in #ost:Structuralist
Criticism 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8/86, ,,) &2&P4+) As 9arari0s em,hasises, the
difference bet?een the t?o versions is im,ortantAsee Te;tual Strate!ies, o,) cit), ,) 21Aand all
,a!e references made ,arenthetically ?ithin the te;t ?ill be to 9arari0s translation of this
subse@uent version) Recourse to the .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice version ?ill be
si!nalled in the notes)
21) %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70, .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice, o,) cit), ,,)
&&1P&2) These remarks, ?hich belon! to Foucault0s ,reamble to 0Ru0est:ce @u0un auteur70 before
the SociLtL franSaise de #hiloso,hie are omitted in the later version of the ,a,er, and therefore
do not a,,ear in 9arari0s translation)
22) See %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70 in Te;tual Strate!ies, o,) cit), ,,) &38P4+)
23) 'n locatin! the emer!ence of the founder of discursivity in the nineteenth century, ho?ever,
?e cannot but sus,ect that insufficient time has ela,sed for ,o?erful modifications or
transformations to have occured) Time may still surrender a dialectical materialism or
,sychoanalysis ?hich encom,asses and transcends the inau!ural te;ts)
24) A certain local dis,lacement of the author may ?ell be at ?ork here, for this ,ara!ra,h A
?hich forms ,art of the main te;t of 0Ru0est:ce @u0un autcur70 as ,resented to the SociLtL
franSaise de #hiloso,hieAa,,ears in Te;tual Strate!ies as a ,articularly astute and intrusive
editor0s footnoteT To com,are ?ith Bouchard0s translation of the ,a,er delivered to the SociLtL
franSaise de #hiloso,hie, see %ichel Foucault, .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice, o,) cit), ,)
&14) =iven its a,,earance in the ori!inal French te;t and in Bouchard0s translation, it seems
justifiable to treat the ,assa!e as thou!h it belon!s to the body ,ro,er of 0-hat is an Author70)
2/) Corres,ondin!ly, Foucault0s e;e!etes have steered ?ell a?ay from this essay, just as they
have ,assed over the ,resentation of a Del,hic >ietFsche as thou!h it ?ere of no conse@uence
for a transindividual theory of discursive ,ractices) Alan Sheridan makes no mention of 0-hat is
an Author70G #amela %ajor:#oetFl makes the solitary observation that it attests to the 0effacement,
even the destruction of the subject0A%ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y of -estern Culture$ To?ards
a >e? Science of 9istory 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(16 ,) &+1G Barlis Racevskis claims that
the essay has sho?n 0that the author is a convenient e;,lanatory device, an a ,riori ,rinci,le ?ith
?hich ?e are able to domesticate a te;t for our o?n s,ecific ,ur,oses0, %ichel Foucault and the
Subversion of 'ntellect 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(16, ,) 18) >ot sur,risin!ly either,
?hen the idea of the founder of discursivity is raised, it is in the conte;t of Foucault himself See
#aul Rabino?0s introduction to The Foucault Reader, ed) #aul Rabino? 59amonds?orth$ #en!uin
Books, &8(26, ,)*4G and d?ard Said, ?ho ,ro,hesies$ 0it is as the founder of a ne? field of
research 5or a ne? ?ay of kno?in! and doin! research6 that he ?ill continue to be kno?n and
re!arded) The virtual re,resentation and re,erce,tion of documentary and historical evidence is
done by Foucault in such an unusual ?ay as to have created for his evidence a ne? mental
domain0 d?ard Said, Be!innin!s$ 'ntention and %ethod 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity
#ress, &8/36, ,) &8&)
2() See %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70, Te;tual Strate!ies, o,) cit), ,) &23)
28) See %ichel Foucault, 0>ietFsche, %ar;, Freud0 in >ietFsche, #roceedin!s of the Seventh
'nternational #hiloso,hical Collo@uium of the Cahiers de Royaumont, 2P( Duly, &842 5#aris$
Uditions de %inuit, &84/6, ,,) &(1P*++)
3+) See Bulletin de la SociLtL franSaise de #hiloso,hie, &848, ,) &+&)
3&) <f course, it is of not of any material si!nificance, in this conte;t, ?hether or not >ietFsche is
strictly s,eakin! a founder of discursivity or a transdiscursive author, or ?hether he is to be
located some?here bet?een the t?oAthe fact remains that he ?ill be there or thereabouts and
conse@uently has every ,lace ?ithin a discussion of this sort) 'ndeed, !iven Foucault0s ,eriod of
?ithdra?al from discourse at this time and his re:emer!ence as a >ietFschean revisionist in his
!enealo!ical ,eriod, the relationshi, bet?een Foucault and >ietFsche conforms neatly to 9arold
Bloom0s fi!ure of affirmation:ne!ation in the e,hebe0s an;ious history of influence)
3*) Friedrich >ietFsche, cce 9omo$ 9o? <ne Becomes -hat <ne 's, trans) R)D) 9oltin!dale
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/86, ,) (()
31) %ichel Foucault, 0#ostscri,t$ An 'ntervie? ?ith %ichel Foucault by Charles Raus0, Death and
the .abyrinth$ The -orld of Raymond Roussel, trans) Charles Raus 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress,
&8(/6, ,) &(2)
32) Dor!e .uis Bor!es, The Ale,h and <ther Stories$ &811P&848, trans) >) Di =iovanni 5>e?
Eork$ Bantam Books, &8/&6, ,) &(+)
33) %ichel Foucault, 0#rison Talk0, Radical #hiloso,hy, no) &4 5S,rin!, &8//6, ,) 11)
34) %ichel Foucault, The Foucault Reader, o,) cit),),,) /4P&++)
3/) 0Truly ' advise you$ !o a?ay from me and !uard yourselves a!ainst NarathustraT ) ) ) <ne
re,ays a teacher badly if one remains only a ,u,il) And ?hy, then, should you not ,luck at my
laurels70AFriedrich >ietFsche, Thus S,ake Narathustra, o,) cit), ,) &+1) >ietFsche ?ill say this
many times, and in many different ?ays$ 0The ,hiloso,her believes that the value of his
,hiloso,hy lies in the ?hole, in the buildin!$ ,osterity discovers it in the bricks ?ith ?hich he built,
and ?hich are then often used for better buildin! ) ) ) 0 Friedrich >ietFsche, A >ietFsche Reader,
selected and trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8//6, ,) 11) 3() 0-e have
to remember ) ) ) that the ancient conce,tion of authorshi, ?as ?idely different from our
o?n ) ) ) A ?riter mi!ht even !o so far as to assume the name of a !reat teacher in order to !ain
a readin! for his book ) ) ) 0 ) Arthur S) #eake, #eake0s Commentary on the Bible 5.ondon$
>elson, &8&86, ,) 8+*)
38) As Dac@ues Derrida says$0The thinkin! of the end of man ) ) ) is al?ays already ,rescribed in
meta,hysics, in the thinkin! of the truth of man)0 Dac@ues Derrida, 0The nds of %an0, %ar!insAof
#hiloso,hy, trans) Alan Bass 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(*6, ,,) &+8P14$ ,) &*&)
4+) 't is ,erha,s ,artly for this reason that Foucault maintains a scru,ulous uncertainty as to
?hether ?e are still 5at the time of ?ritin!6 ?ithin the A!e of %an, or are instead daFFled by the
unaccustomed li!ht of the comin! e,isteme) This s,ace bet?een e,istemi is the ideal ,oint from
?hich the archaeolo!ist mi!ht s,eak for it frees him front the s,ecific determinations of any
,articular confi!uration of kno?led!e and forms so to s,eak, a lyrical intermeFFo bet?een ri!id,
,rescri,tive systems) Foucault0s elusiveness on the e,istemic stationin! of the archaeolo!ical
discourse has led #amela %ajor:#oetFl to ,ostulate a fourth and contem,orary e,isteme
commencin! in &83+, thou!h she does so ?ith no direct authorisation from the te;t) See #amela
%ajor:#oetFl, %ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y of -estern Culture, o,) cit), ,,) &3(P8G &8&P3)
4&) And Foucault0s style does everythin! to confirm the transcendental status of the
archaeolo!ical author) 9e ?rites ?ith an omniscient assurance, in tones ,erem,tory and
,ortentousG ?ith ?hat Roland Barthes ?ould call the voice of =od) 'ndeed, d?ard Said makes
the ,oint that Foucault0s voice is undoubtedly the 0voice of an Author0, thou!h he sees no
,articular contradiction in an authorful and authoritarian discourse ?hich recommends the
anonymity of discourse) See d?ard Said, 0An thics of .an!ua!e0, Diacritics, vol) 2, no) *
5Summer &8/26, ,,) *(P1/$ ,) *()
4*) <n >ietFsche0s ,ers,ectivism see Arthur C) Danto, >ietFsche as #hiloso,her 5>e? Eork$
Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(+6, ,,) 4(P88)
41) And it is surely due in lar!e measure to the Cartesian tradition that ,henomenolo!y should
have e;erted its !reatest influence not in its native =ermany but in France)
42) %ichel Foucault, @uoted in #amela %ajor:#oetFl, %ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y of -estern
Culture, o,) cit), ,) 8)
43) 'ndeed Dreyfus and Rabino? say that Foucault told them that this ?as its 0real subtitle0A
9ubert .) Dreyfus and #aul Rabino?, %ichel Foucault$ Beyond Structuralism and 9ermeneutics,
o, cit), ,) vii) This vie? of The <rder of Thin!s as an alle!ory of the ,resent told throu!h the ,ast
receives a certain confirmation from Foucault himself) 9e later said$ 0my book is a ,ure and
sim,le fiction$ it is a novel, but it is not ' ?ho invented itG it is the relation of our e,och and its
e,istemolo!ical confi!uration to a ?hole mass of statements)0 %ichel Foucault, @uoted in #amela
%ajor:#oetFl, %ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y of -estern Culture, o,) cit), ,) &8)
44) Also, follo?in! Dreyfus and Rabino?, ?e mi!ht read, for 09usserl0, %erleau:#onty$ 0Foucault0s
account of 9usserl is similar to that found in %erleau:#onty0s Sorbonne lectures,
00#henomenololo!y and the Sciences of %anO ) ) ) Foucault0s mischaracterisation of 9usserl0s
account of the co!ito is, in fact, an accurate characterisation of the thou!ht of %erleau:#onty)0
9ubert .) Dreyfus and #aul Rabino?, %ichel Foucault$ Beyond Structuralism and 9ermeneutics,
o,) cit), ,,) 14P/) Dreyfus and Rabino? su!!est that Foucault 0acce,ts0 this readin!, but it is
doubtful that Foucault0s misreadin! is @uite as naive as they im,ly) They also say$ 09usserl, in
fact, holds to the end the vie? that Foucault succinctly characteriFes and then im,lies he rejects,
viF) that he Orevived the dee,est vocation of the -estern ratio, bendin! it back u,on itself in a
reflection ?hich is a radicalisation of ,ure ,hiloso,hy and a basis for the ,ossibility, of its o?n
history0O) 'bid), ,) 1/) -ith both readin!s available to Foucault, it is surely no accident that he
decided u,on the one ?hich serves to distance 9usserlian ,henomenolo!y from the Cartesian
co!ito)
4/) For an account of this controversy see #amela %ajor:#oetFl, %ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y
of -estern Culture, o,) cit), ,,) (P&&)
4() Dor!e .uis Bor!es, .abyrinths 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/+6, ,) 31) The ?ord,
naturally, is 0chess0) 48) See, as t?o e;am,les amon! many of Foucault0s resistance to bein!
cate!orised as a structuralist, The <rder of Thin!s, o,) cit), ,) ;iv, and The Archaeolo!y of
Bno?led!e, o,) cit), ,,) &88P*+3) Foucault0s statement that he did not once use the ?ord
0structure0 in The <rder of Thin!s is to be found in the discussion follo?in! 0Ru0est:ce @u0un
aureur70$ 0' have never, for my ,art, used the ?ord OstructureO) Seek it in The <rder of Thin!s, you
?ill not find it there)0 %ichel Foucault, 0Ru0est:ce @u0un auteur70, o,) cit), ,) &++)
/+) %ichel Foucault, @uoted in Dohn Rajchman, %ichel Foucault$ The Freedom of #hiloso,hy
5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(36, ,,) 13P4)
/&) RenL Descartes, Discourse on %ethod and the %editations, o,) cit), ,) 32)
/*) See Dac@ues .acan, Ucrits$ A Selection, trans) Alan Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8//6, ,,)
&42P3 for the clearest of .acan0s many accounts of this modern anti:co!ito) This selection ?as
based on the ori!inal French te;t Ucrits 5#aris$ Seuil, &8446)
/1) Dac@ues .acan in Deffrey %ehlman, ed), French Freud$ Structural Studies in #sychoanalysis,
Eale French Studies 2( 5&8/*6, ,) 3+ and ,) /+)
/2) 'bid), ,) 4+)
/3) .acan0s res,onses to these ,roblems, such as they can be termed 0res,onses0, are strate!ic
rather than ,hiloso,hical) Firstly, by reservin! s,ace in his te;ts and seminars ?herein he mimics
the dissonance and ,oetry of ,sychotic s,eech, indul!es in ,uns, ,arado;es, solecisms, elli,ses,
!lossolalia and echolalia, he attem,ts to e;hibit the ,lay of unconscious si!nification ?ithin his
discourse of the unconscious) But e;hibit is ,recisely ?hat those occasional ,erformances do
?ith the unconscious, in that they function as demonstrations or e;am,les much as the dream:
te;t does ?ithin the Freudian discursus) -ere .acan0s te;ts manifestations of the unconscious
rather than its descri,tion, then the very claims he makes about the unconscious ?ould be
rendered irremediably illo!ical and incommunicable) 'n a ?ord, such claims ?ould not e;ist) >o
constative thread could be told a,art from the unconscious of his te;t, for the unconsciousAin
accordance ?ith the universal ,ro!eniture it ac@uires in .acanianismA?ould ,lay itself out to the
en!ulfment of all besides) The dynamics of this a,oretic situation seem to have been
misunderstood in an other?ise most ,erce,tive revie? of the first edition of my book$ 0Burke0s
ar!ument concernin! the ,arado; in the .acaman theory of subjectivity does not convince)
.acan, he ar!ues, ,ositions a fundamental ,arado; in his theory, in that his o?n mastery of
Freudian discourse is im,licitly at odds ?ith his insistence that our unconscious determines
everythin! ?e do, and that ?e cannot master our o?n discourses) .acan0s mastery of Freud is
merely local, ho?ever, revealin! the ?ork of the unconscious)0ADulian -olfreys, 0#remature
<bituaries0, Radical #hiloso,hy 4/ 5Summer &8826, ,,) 3/P($ ,) 3/) 9o?ever, as ' trust my
ar!ument makes clear, .acan0s recourse to Freud takes the form of deference to, rather than
mastery of, the founder of ,sychoanalysis) .acan ?ould sooner be mastered by Freud than
confront the authority im,licit in his o?n theoretical stance) The ,roblems raised by the claim that
.acan is merely 0revealin! the ?ork of the unconscious0 are dealt ?ith belo?)
/4) Dean %ichel #almier, @uoted in Dane =allo,, Readin! .acan 5'thaca Cornell "niversity #ress,
&8(36, ,) 2+) =allo, for?ards an interestin! discussion of .acan0s im,licit mastery of lan!ua!e,
but admits a similar susce,tibility to the auctoritas of his te;t)
//) Catherine ClLment, The .ives and .e!ends of Dac@ues .acan, trans) Arthur =oldhammer
5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(16, ,) 1&)
/() 'bid), ,) *+&)
/8) This is not to su!!est that .acan is free of any defensive an;ieties of influence but that such
an;ieties do not take Freud as their object) For a !lim,se of .acan a!onistes concernin! 9e!el
see Dac@ues .acan, The Four Fundamental Conce,ts of #sycho:analysis, trans) Alan Sheridan
59armonds?orch$ #en!uin Books, &8//6, ,) *&3)
(+) 'bid), ,) *1*)
(&) Dac@ues .acan, @uoted in Barlis Racevskis, %ichel Foucault and the Subversion of 'ntellect
o,) cit), ,,) 12P3)
(*) Dulia Bristeva, 0The System and the S,eakin! Subject0, The Times .iterary Su,,lement, &*
<ctober &8/1, ,,) &*28P3+$ ,) &*28)
(1) .ud?i! -itt!enstein, Tractatus .o!ico:#hiloso,hicus, trans) D)F) #ears and B)F) %c=uinness
5.ondon$ Rouded!e and Be!an #aul, &84*6, 3)42&, ,) 3()
(2) 'ndeed ?hen Foucault ?as ,ressed on this issue he re,lied by sayin! that the death of man
and the @uestion of the author are not to be hastily consociated) See %ichel Foucault, 0Ru0est:ce
@u0un auteur70, o,) cit), ,) &+*)
(3) There are of course strate!ic reasons ?hy Foucault should ?ish to kee, the issues of author
and man at a certain distance) >ot least amon! these is the fact that Foucault had said that the
author ?as constituted in the era of re,resentation$ 0The artist ?as able to emer!e from the a!e:
old anonymity of e,ic sin!ers only by usur,in! the ,o?er and the meanin! of the same e,ic
values) The heroic dimension ,assed from the hero to the one ?hose task it had been to
re,resent him at a time ?hen -estern culture itself became a ?orld of re,resentations)0A%ichel
Foucault, .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice, o,) cit), ,) /1) There could then be no @uestion
of associatin! the deaths of author and man on the basis of the e,istemic economy of The <rder
of Thin!s)
(4) Dean:%arie Benoist, The Structural Revolution 5.ondon$ -eidenfeld and >icolson, &8/()6, ,)
&1)
(/) Ste,hen 9eath, 0Comment on OThe idea of authorshi,O 0, in Dohn Cau!hie, ed), Theories of
Authorshi,$ A Reader 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(&6, ,,) *&2P*+$ ,) *&4)
(() %artin Day, 0Should 'ntellectual 9istory Take a .in!uistic Turn07, in Dominick .aCa,ra and
Steven .) Ca,lan, eds, %odern uro,ean 'ntellectual 9istory$ Rea,,raisals and >e?
#ers,ectives 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(*6, ,,) (4P&&+$ ,) (8)
(8) Charles C) .emert, and =arth =illan, %ichel Foucault$ Social Theory and Trans!ression 5>e?
Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(*6, ,) &14) For another e;am,le of the over:hasty
identification of authorial, transcendental and divine subjects see #ierre %acherey, A Theory of
.iterary #roduction, trans) =eoffrey -all 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8/(6, es,ecially
,,) 44P()
8+) 'mmanuel Bant, A Criti@ue of #ure Reason, o,) cit), B 2+2, ,) 11&)
8&) dmund 9usserl, The 'dea of #henomenolo!y, trans) -illiam #) Alston and =eor!e
>akhrukian 59a!ue$ %artinus >ijhoff, &8426, ,) ;viiiP;i;)
8*) dmund 9usserl, Cartesian %editations, o,) cit), ,,) 1&P*)
81) #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism,
second edition, revised and enlar!ed, ed) -lad =odFich 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(16, ,) 28)
82) 'bid), ,) 1()
83) ) D) 9irsch Dr, Malidity in 'nter,retation 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &84/6, ,) 1*)
84) 'bid), ,) *1G ,) 3&)
8/) 'bid), ,) 3&)
8() Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, trans) and ed) Ste,hen 9eath 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8//6,
,) &2/)
88) %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70, Te;tual Strate!ies, ,) &38)
&++) Dames Doyce, A #ortrait of the Artist as a Eoun! %an, in 9arry .evin, ed), The ssential
Dames Doyce 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8416, ,,) 3*P*3*$ ,) **&)
&+&) %ichel Foucault, 0-hat is an Author70, Te;tual Strate!ies, o,) cit), ,) &22)
&+*) =eor!es #oulet, in Richard %acksey and u!enio Donato, eds, The Structuralist
Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of %an 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins
"niversity #ress, &8/*6, ,) &23)
&+1) This autobio!ra,hical em,hasis is to be found not only in the later ?ork, but virtually ri!ht
across the >ietFschean cor,us) 'n the earlier ,eriod, for e;am,le, >ietFsche ?ent so far as to
ask$ 0-hither does this ?hole ,hiloso,hy, ?ith all its circuitous ,aths, ?ant to !o7 Does it do more
than translate, as it ?ere, a stron! and constant drive, a drive for ) ) ) A those thin!s ?hich ) ) )
are most endurable ,recisely for me7 A ,hiloso,hy ?hich is at bottom the instinct for ,ersonal
diet7 An instinct ?hich seeks my o?n air, my o?n hei!hts, my o?n kind of health and ?eather, by
the circuitous ,aths of my head70 Friedrich >ietFsche, Daybreak$ Thou!hts on the #rejudices of
%orality, trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(*6, ,) **1)
&+2) Friedrich >ietFsche, Beyond =ood and vil$ #relude to a #hiloso,hy of the Future, trans)
R)D) 9ollin!dale 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/16, ,) &()
&*) See Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, The Confessions of Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, trans) D)%)
Cohen 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8316)
&1) Dac@ues Derrida, 0Co!ito and the 9istory of %adness0, in Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin! and
Difference, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(&6, ,,) 1&P41$ ,) 13) The
im,ossibility of ?ritin! 0a history of silence0 is one of the criticisms Derrida makes of Foucault0s
history of madness) See %ichel Foucault, %adness and CiviliFation$ A 9istory of 'nsanity in the
A!e of Reason, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &84/6)
&2) See Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, ssay on the <ri!in of .an!ua!es, trans) D)9) %oran and
Ale;ander =ode 5>e? Eork$ Fredric "n!ar, &8446)
&3) See Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, Discourse on 'ne@uality, trans) %aurice Cranston
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8(26)
&4) See Dac@ues Derrida) <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,) &82)
&/) 'bid), ,,) &81P2)
&() =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak, 0Translator0s #reface0, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,) l;;;v)
&8) 'bid)
*+) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0#lato0s #harmacy0, Dissemination, trans) Barbara Dohnson 5.ondon$
Athlone #ress, &8(&6, ,,) 4&P&/&)
*&) See #lato, #haedrus in The Collected Dialo!ues of #lato, 'ncludin! the .etters, ed) dith
9amilton and 9untin!ton Cairns, Bollin!en Series .]]' 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress,
&84&6)
**) Dac@ues Derrida, Dissemination, o,) cit), ,,) 44P/)
*1) Full references to the ,rete;ts and conte;ts of Derrida0s readin! of #lato ?ill be made to the
section 0The %yth of -ritin!0 belo?)
*2) See #lato, #haedrus, o,) cit)
*3) Dac@ues Derrida, 0#lato0s #harmacy o,, cit), ,) 4/)
*4) 'rene ) 9arvey hi!hli!hts the ,roblem of Rousseau0s e;em,larity in an article entitled
0Doublin! the S,ace of ;istence$ ;em,larity in DerridaAthe Case of Rousseau0 in Dohn Sallis,
ed), Deconstruction and #hiloso,hy$ The Te;ts of Dac@ues Derrida 5Chica!o and .ondon$
"niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6, ,,) 4+P/+) She ar!ues that 0Rousseau is a mere e;am,le on
the one hand, a su,erfluous addition and in ,rinci,le could have been re,laced or substituted by
anyone else in such a demonstration, yet on the other hand is a ,articularly !ood e;am,leAa
crucial and critical choice, a uni@ue individual, non:substitutable, and offerin! an essential
addition in order to fill a void0) 54*6 9arvey does not, ho?ever, ar!ue a ,aucity of lo!ocentric te;ts
from this, nor does she connect the @uestion of e;em,larity to the @uestion of the author,
contendin! rather that the notion of e;em,larity itself should be deconstructed)
*/) These ,roblems are still further com,ounded ?hen ?e consider that the full title of the ssay
is the ssay on the <r!in of .an!ua!es, ?hich Treats of %elody and %usical 'mitation, and that
since it !ives over a !ood ,art of its labour to discoursin! on music, many scholars have
concluded that this is its ,ro,er subject) As is to be e;,ected, Derrida challen!es this ,osition,
and s,ends a full t?enty ,a!es ar!uin! that, in any case, Rousseau0s thou!ht on the ori!in of
music is sim,ly another e;,ression of his thou!ht on the ori!in of lan!ua!es) 5See Dac@ues
Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,,) &83P*&4)6 That Derrida mi!ht be utterly ,ersuasive here
is irrelevant to our concern, ?hich is sim,ly to note the com,lications involved in usin! one
,roblematical te;t and one ,roblematical author to e;em,lify an entire e,och)
*() For e;am,le$ 0from the Discourse to the ssay the slidin! movement is to?ard continuity) The
Discourse ?ants to mark the be!innin! ) ) ) The ssay ?ould make us sense the be!innin!s by
?hich Omen s,arsely ,laced on the face of the earthO continuously ?rench themselves a?ay,
?ithin a society bein! born, from the ,ure state of nature) 't ca,tures man as he ,asses into birth,
in that subtle transition from ori!in to !enesis)0 Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,)
*31)
*8) From Derrida0s footnote to this claim, it ?ould not a,,ear 0easy0 at all$ 0't is beside the ,oint
both of our ,rojects and of the ,ossibility of our demonstratin! from internal evidence the link
bet?een the characteristic and .eibniF0s infinitist theolo!y) For that it ?ould be necessary to !o
throu!h and e;haust the entire content of the ,roject0) Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,)
cit), ,) 11&, n) &2)
1+) <nce a!ain, ?hatever novelty and im,act ?e ascribe to Derrida0s thinkin! on meta,hysics is
only to be determined via the e;tent to ?hich he can be said to move beyond the 9eide!!erian
criti@ue)
1&) For instance, in an intervie? ?ith =uy Scar,etta, Derrida res,onds to the im,utation that he
has denied the subject, by sayin!$ 0As you recall, ' have never said that there is not a subject of
?ritin! ) ) ) 't is solely necessary to reconsider the ,roblem of the effect of subjectivity such as it
is ,roduced by the structure of the te;t ) ) ) Doubtless this effect is inse,arable from a certain
relationshi, bet?een sublimation and the death instinct, from a movement of interiorisation:
idealisation:relQve:sublimation, etc), and therefore from a certain re,ression) And it ?ould be
ridiculous to overlook the necessity of this chain, and even more so to raise some moral or
,olitical OobjectionO to it)0 Dac@ues Derrida, #ositions, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress,
&8(&6, ,) (()
1*) 9arold Bloom, 0Auras$ The Sublime Crossin! and the Death of .ove0, <;ford .iterary Revie?,
vol) 2, no) 1 5&8(&6, ,,) 1P&8$ ,,) &(P&8)
11) Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,) &4+)
12) -)B) -imsatt Dr and %onroe C) Beardsley, 0The 'ntentional Fallacy0, Se?anee Revie?, vol)
32, no) 1 5&8246, ,,) 24(P(() Revised version in -)B) -imsatt Dr, The Merbal 'con$ Studies in the
%eanin! of #oetry 5.e;in!ton$ "niversity of Bentucky #ress, &8326, ,,) 1P&() Steven Bna,, and
-alter Benn %ichaeb, 0A!ainst Theory0, in -)D)T) %itchell, ed), A!ainst Theory$ .iterary Studies
and the >e? #ra!matism 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(36, ,,) &&P1+) 0A!ainst
Theory0 ?as ori!inally ,ublished in Critical 'n@uiry, vol) (, no) 2 5Summer &8(*6, ,,) /1*P2*)
13) See D) .) Austin, 9o? to Do Thin!s ?ith -ords 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &84*6G Dohn R)
Searle, S,eech Acts$ An ssay in the #hiloso,hy of .an!ua!e 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity
#ress, &8486G 9)#) =rice, 0'ntention and "ncertainty0, #roceedin!s of the British Academy, 3/
5&8/&6, ,,) *41P/8) 't is too early at this sta!e to foresee the im,act ?hich =rice0s im,ressive,
lon!:evolvin! and lar!ely un,ublished ?ork ?ill have u,on literary theory) A detailed introduction
to his thou!ht is ,rovided in Richard ) =randy and Richard -arner, eds), #hiloso,hical =rounds
of Rationality$ 'ntentions, Cate!ories, nds 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8(46)
14) Dohn R) Searle, 0Reiteratin! the Differences$ A Re,ly to Derrida0 in =ly,h ' 5&8//6, ,,) &8(P
*+($ ,) *+&)
1/) Dac@ues Derrida, 0Si!nature vent Conte;t0, trans) Samuel -eber and Deffrey %ehlman in
=ly,h ' 5&8//6, ,,) &/*P8/$ ,) &8*) This essay also a,,ears in %ar!insAof #hiloso,hy, o,) cit),
,,) 1+/P1+, but the =ly,h translation is ,referred in the interests of the continuity of the
e;chan!e) For Derrida0s re,ly to Searle0s re,ly see 0.imited 'nc0, trans) Samuel -eber in =ly,h, ''
5&8//6, ,,) &4*P3&) For Derrida0s defence of his o?n ,osition on intention see ibid), ,,) &8&P*&()
1() The models <f intention Derrida de,loys are not to be seen as ,urely intrate;tual
reconstructions) >ot only the =rammatolo!y, but the vast majority of Derrida0s readin!s ,atiently
develo, the ,attern of an author0s determinate meanin! throu!h full, unim,eded access to the
oeuvre) 'n accordance ?ith constructive insistence that no one mode of ?ritin! has any
necessary ,rivile!e over another, the oeuvre is e;tended to include letters, early manuscri,ts,
notebook entries, 0immature0 ?orks, all of ?hich inhabit the te;tual s,ace on an e@ual footin!)
'ndeed, @uite a!ainst intrate;tualism, Derrida is to be found most often ar!uin! for the continuity
and inse,arability of an author0s various ?ritin!s) For e;am,le, he resolutely resists the idea that
there is any 0turn0 in 9eide!!er0s ,hiloso,hy) See, Dac@ues Derrida, 0The nds of %an0, %ar!insA
of #hiloso,hy, o,) cit), ,,) &+8P&14G as too the clearin! of a continuous ,ath?ay bet?een the t?o
Freudian to,olo!ies in 0Freud and the Scene of -ritin!0, -ritin! and Difference, o,, cit), ,,) &84P
*1&) The case could even be made that the ascri,tion of continuous intentions to the authors he
reads is a !eneral characteristic of Derrida0s ?ork) The reconciliation of mar!inal te;ts to the body
,ro,er is also, of course, the o,eration ,erformed u,on the #haedrus and the ssay)
18) See %ichael 9ancher, 0Three Binds of intention0, %odern .an!ua!e >otes, (/ 5&8/*6, ,,)
(*/P3&) <n 9ancher0s classification of intent, see D) Timothy Ba!?ell, American Formalism
and the #roblem of 'nter,retation 59ouston, Te;as$ Rice "niversity #ress, &8(46, ,,) &&8P*&)
Ba!?ell0s book is very useful on the history of critical attitudes to intention, and offers an
interestin! modern ,ro:intentionalist ar!ument) Another si!nificant challen!e to >e? Critical
,ictures of intention is ,rovided by Stein <lsen in his book The nd of .iterary Theory
5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(/6) See, in ,articular, ,,) *8P3*)
2+) =iven the density, and the mimicry of Derrida0s ,rose, it is often necessary, ho?ever, to read
very attentively in order to se,arate ?hat is e;,licative and ?hat is deconstructive in his readin!s)
<ccasionally, too, the deconstructive and the e;,licative ,hases of his criti@ues ?ill be confused,
as, for e;am,le, ?hen one of his commentators says$ 0-ritin! asserts itself des,ite Freud0s ?ill to
restrict it to a fi!ural and secondary status) As Derrida ,redicts, Oit is ?ith a !ra,hematics still to
come, rather than ?ith a lin!uistics dominated by an ancient ,honolo!ism that ,sychoanalysis
sees itself as destined to collaborateO)0 Christo,her >orris, Deconstruction$ Theory and #ractice
5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(*6) This is not, ho?ever, ?hat Derrida ,redicts, but ?hat Freud ,redicts)
As Derrida makes clear in the succeedin! sentence$ 0Freud recommends this literally in a te;t
from &8&1, and in this case ?e have nothin! to add, inter,ret, alter)0 Dac@ues Derrida, 0Freud and
the Scene of -ritin!0, -ritin! and Difference, o,) cit), ,) **+)
2&) This is the format of Derrida0s ar!uments that 9eide!!er0s readin! of >ietFsche betrays the
seminally counter:meta,hysical directions of the >ietFschean ,roject) See Dac@ues Derrida,
S,ursKU,erons, trans) Barbara 9arlo? 5.ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8/86) Curiously,
but accordin! to the same ,rinci,le, Derrida also ar!ues that mmanuel .evinas0s readin! of
9eide!!er falsifies the ori!inal 9eide!!erian intent even, and es,ecially as it fei!ns to move
beyond the 9eide!!erian deconstruction) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0Miolence and %eta,hysics$ An
ssay on the Thou!ht of mmanuel .evinas0, -ritin! and Difference, o,) cit), ,,) /8P&31)
Similarly, Derrida0s ,a,er 0The nds of %an0 finds itself by no means in o,,osition to the thou!ht
of 9e!el, 9usserl and 9eide!!er, but is rather a carefully steered liberation of their thou!ht from
both the overly anthro,olo!ical readin!s of both humanists like Sartre ?ho sou!ht therein
justification for his o?n e;istential humanism, and anti:humanists ?hose naively humanist
inter,retations of their ?ork made it all the easier to dismiss the ,henomenolo!ical ,roject) See
Dac@ues Derrida, 0The nds of %an0, %ar!insAof #hiloso,hy, ,,) &+8P14)
2*) As one e;am,le amon!st so many, Derrida ?rites of Freud0s notion of the unconscious trace$
0Freud0s notion of the trace must be radicaliFed and e;tracted from the meta,hysics ?hich still
retains it ) ) ) Such a radicaliFation of the thou!ht of the trace ) ) ) ?ould be fruitful not only in the
deconstruction of lo!ocentrism, but in a kind of reflection e;ercised more ,ositively at different
levels of ?ritin! in !eneral)0 Dac@ues Derrida, 0Freud and the Scene of -ritin!0, o,) cit), ,,) **8P
1+)
21) 'n a classic, ,oint:for:,oint statement of revisionist influence, Derrida e;,lains to 9enri Rotise$
0-hat ' have attem,ted ?ould not have been ,ossible ?ithout the o,enin! of 9eide!!er0s
@uestions) And first ) ) ) ?ould not have been ,ossible ?ithout the attention to ?hat 9eide!!er
calls the difference bet?een Bein! and bein!s, the ontico:ontolo!ical difference such as, in a
?ay, it remains unthou!ht by ,hiloso,hy) But des,ite this debt to 9eide!!er, or rather because of
it, ' attem,t to locate in 9eide!!er0s te;t ) ) ) the si!ns of a belon!in! to meta,hysics, or to ?hat
he calls onto:theolo!y)0 Dac@ues Derrida, #ositions, o,) cit), ,,) 8P&+) Doubtless ?e should read
Derrida as Derrida read 9eide!!er, for the 0si!ns of a belon!in! to meta,hysics0) >o activity, at
base, could be more faithful)
22) ' ada,t this formulation from the te;t$ 0-hat does Rousseau say ?ithout sayin!, see ?ithout
seein!70 Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit), ,) *&3)
23) <n the dual meanin! of ,harmakon as both ,oison and remedy, see Dac@ues Derrida, 0#lato0s
#harmacy0, o,) cit)
24) To reverse the ,riority of s,eech over ?ritin! is sim,ly to reconfirm their o,,osition and to
remain 0irreducibly rooted in that meta,hysics0) See Dac@ues Derrida, <f =rammatolo!y, o,) cit),
,) 1&2)
2/) D) 9illis %iller, 0Deconstructin! the Deconstructers0, Diacritics, vol) 3, no) * 5&8/36, ,,) *2P1&$
,) 1&) Derrida, too, raises the ,ossibility of a te;t that every?here e;ceeds and incor,o
rates any inter,retation that mi!ht be made of it, but he does so in the conte;t of his ,olemic ?ith
.acan$ 0?hat ha,,ens in the ,sychoanalytic deci,herin! of a te;t ?hen the latter, the deci,hered
itself, already e;,licates itself7 -hen it says more about itself than the deci,herin! 5a debt
ackno?led!ed by Freud more than once67 And es,ecially ?hen the deci,hered te;t inscribes in
itself additionally the scene of the deci,herin!70 Dac@ues Derrida, 0.e facteur de la vLritL0, The
#ost Card$ From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans) Alan Bass 5Chica!o and .ondon$
"niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6, ,,) 2&&P84$ ,) 2&2)
2() -hich a!ain reflects the conver!enceAnoted in the ,revious cha,terAof transcendentally
auteurist and transcendentally anti:auteurist theories in a similarly idealised notion of the te;t)
28) As #aul de %an does in an other?ise su,erb essay, 0The Rhetoric of Blindness0 in Blindness
and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism, second edition, revised and
enlar!ed, ed) -lad =odFich 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(16 ,,) &+*P2&) 'ntention does not a,,ear by
name in the essay, but that is ,lainly its subject) De %an claims$ 0Rousseau0s te;t has no blind:
s,ots ) ) ) There is no need to construct RousseauG the established tradition of Rousseau
inter,retation, ho?ever, stands in dire need of deconstruction ) ) ) instead of havin! Rousseau
deconstruct his critics, ?e have Derrida constructin! a ,seudo:Rousseau by means of insi!hts
that could have been !ained from the 0real0 Rousseau0) 5&2&P*6 -e do not need to be constrained
by the terms of de %an0s ar!ument here) >othin! obli!es us to decide bet?een the absolute
deconstruction of Rousseauian intention and its absolute recu,erationG a thorou!h!oin!
com,arison of the ssay and the =rammatolo!y ?ould doubtless reveal a ,attern of ,artial
deconstruction and ,artial a,,ro,riation) 'n a sense, ?e are a!ain ,resented ?ith the same
absolute divide on intention that ?e sketched at the o,enin! of this section) <ne ?hich is further
confirmed ?hen ?e consider that a fe? years later de %an ventured an inter,retation of
RousseauA?ritten very much under the influence of DerridaA?hich took u, a ri!idly anti:
intentionalist stand,oint) See #aul de %an, Alle!ories of Readin!$ Fi!ural .an!ua!e in Rousseau,
>ietFsche, Rilke and #roust 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/86, es,ecially ,,) */(P1+&)
De %an0s chan!in! ,ositions on intention and the author ?ill be discussed in the conclusion)
3+) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak, The #ost:Colonial Critic$ 'ntervie?s, Strate!ies, Dialo!ues, ed)
Sarah 9arasym 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &88+6, ,) &14)
3&) References ?ill be made ,arenthetically in the te;t to Dac@ues Derrida, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 in
Dac@ues Derrida, Dissemination, trans) Barbara Dohnson, 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(&6, ,,) 4&P
&/&) An early version ?as ,ublished as 0.a #harmacie de #laton0 in Tel Ruel, nos) 1* and 11
5&84(6G the later French version is collected in Dac@ues Derrida, .a DissLmination 5#aris$ ditions
du Seuil, &8/*6, ,,) /&P&8/)
3*) All references to #lato ?ill be made to #lato, The Collected Dialo!ues of #lato, 'ncludin! the
.etters, ed) dith 9amilton and 9untin!ton Cairns, Bollin!en Series .]]' 5#rinceton$ #rinceton
"niversity #ress, &84&6) #a!e numbers and letters !iven ,arenthetically ?ithin the te;t refer to
Ste,hanus0s Renaissance edition) The translation of the #haedrus in the #rinceton edition is by
R) 9ackforth and may also be consulted in R) 9ackforth, #lato0s #haedrus, translated ?ith an
introduction and commentary 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &83*6) For an alternative
to 9ackforth0s translation as ?ell as su!!estive commentary, the reader ?ould do ?ell to consult
C)D) Ro?e, #lato$ #haedrus, ?ith Translation and Commentary 5-arminster$ Aris and #hilli,s,
&8(46) For those ?ho ?ish to read in French, 0.a #hannacie de #laton0 should be read alon!side
.Lon Robin, #laton, <euvres Com,lVtes 'M) 1$ #hQdre, *nd dition 5#aris, &83+6)
31) Derrida clearly ?ishes us to read 0#lato0s #harmacy0 ?ith <f =rammatolo!y in terms of the
latter0s ?ork on intention and su,,lementarity$ 0' take the liberty, of referrin! the reader, in order to
!ive him a ,reliminary, indicative direction, to the 0Ruestion of %ethod0 ,ro,osed in De la
!rammatolo!ie ) ) ) -ith a fe? ,recautions, one could say that the ,harmakon ,lays a role
analo!ous, in this readin! of #lato, to that of su,,lLment in the readin! of Rousseau0 584, n) 216)
32) These ,rotocols are ,ersuasive in their o?n terms and have certain ,oints of s,ecific
relevance to the section of the #haedrus concerned ?ith s,eech and ?ritin!) 'ndeed, Derrida
mi!ht have consolidated his ,osition here ?ith an eye to the Socratic ,roblem, to the ,lay
of 0voices0 and si!natures ?hich take ,lace in a scene of ?ritin! ?hich ,ur,orts to be a scene of
dialo!ic voicin!, to the ,otentially ironic contests bet?een a Socrates ?ho 0s,eaks0 a!ainst ?ritin!
in a te;t ?hich is ?ritten by #lato) That he does not do so is a matter ?e shall address a little
later)
33) 'n fact, the ,ath of Derrida0s readin! does not disallo? #latonic intention but sets it off a!ainst
the su,,lementary ,lay of the ,harmakon) To this e;tent, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 conforms to the
,attern of early Derridean readin! outlined in the section 0Doublin! the Te;t0 above)
34) .iterature on the authenticity of the #latonic letters is e;tensive and finds recommendation
here only to illustrate the difficulties facin! Derrida in constructin! a #latonic ,rivile!in! of s,eech,
let alone an 0e,och of lo!ocentrism0) >ineteenth:century scholarshi, sim,ly assumed the letters to
be for!eries) -ilamo?itF:%oellendorff u,set this consensus by declarin! the Seventh and i!hth
.etters to be !enuineG and early in this century, 9ackforth0s discriminations served to orient the
debate in the n!lish:s,eakin! ?orld as follo?s$ 0?e may hold five of the #latonic ,istles
!enuine, viF), iii, iv, vii, viii, ;iii ) ) ) ?e must reject five, viF), i, ii, v, vi, ;ii ) ) ) the remainin! three,
i;, ; and ;i, must be left doubtful)0AR) 9ackforth, The Authorshi, of the #latonic ,istles
5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity #ress, &8&16, ,) &(() For a relatively recent formulation of
the case a!ainst the Seventh .etters0 authenticity, see .ud?i! delstein, #lato0s Seventh .etter,
#hiloso,hia Anti@ua vol)]'M 5.eiden$ )D) Brill, &8446, es,ecially ,,) /4P(3 ?here the ar!ument
a!ainst authenticity is ,ursued in the s,ecific conte;t of the re,udiation of ?ritin!) Ruite the
contrary ar!ument can be found in #aul Friedli_nder, #lato '$ An 'ntroduction, 1 vols), trans) 9ans
%eyerhoff 5.ondon$ Routled!e ` Be!an #aul, &83(6, ,,) *14P23)
3/) The dividend of the mytholo!ical e;cursus is that 0#lato0s #harmacy0 ?ill then talk about the
0hierarchical o,,osition bet?een son and father, subject and kin!, death and life, ?ritin! and
s,eech, etc)0) 58*6 as thou!h it ?ere structured into the very ?ar, and ?oof of the #haedrus) <ne
?ill also notice that ?hen the lifeKdeath o,,osition a,,ears in Derrida0s te;t, it invariably does so
adjacent to 0s,eechK?ritin!0)
3() 0'f lo!os has a father, if it is a lo!os only ?hen attended by its father, this is because it is
al?ays a bein! 5on6 and even a certain s,ecies of bein! 5the So,hist, *4+a6, more ,recisely a
livin! bein!) .o!os is a Foon) An animal that is born, !ro?s, belon!s to the ,husis) .in!uistics,
lo!ic, dialectics, and Foolo!y are all in the same cam,)0 5/86
38) 0The inventor of ?ritin! in =reek le!end ?as #rometheusG but he ?as unsuitable for #lato0s
,ur,ose, since it ?ould have been difficult to make anyone ,lay a!ainst him the ,art that Thamus
,lays a!ainst Theuth) And in any case it ?as natural enou!h for #lato to !o to !y,t for a tale of
,re:history, just as in a later dialo!ue he !oes to an !y,tian ,riest for his story of Atlantis,0AR)
9ackforth, #lato0s #haedrus, o,) cit), ,) &3/, n) *) 9ackforth0s jud!ement is corroborated by =)D)
De Mries, A Commentary on the #haedrus of #lato, o,) cit) 5Amsterdam$ Adolf %) 9akkert, &8486,
,) *2()
4+) ;,loratory rather than thetic, the section on the inferiority of the ?ritten ?ord is also
e;ceedin!ly brief in its attention to s,eech and ?ritin!Ajust under four ,a!es 5*/2bP*//a6 in
Ste,hanus0s Renaissance edition)
4&) The com,arison of ?ritin! to ,aintin! ?ill be considered belo?) Socrates mi!ht seem to
,rovide some encoura!ement to the lifeKdeath o,,osition by sayin! that ?ritten ?ords s,eak to
you as thou!h they ?ere alive) 5#haedrus, */3d6 9o?ever, it is not the dece,tive a,,earance of
0life0 in ,aintin!s but their ,ro,erty of muteness before @uestionin! ?hich transfers to the !ra,hic)
4*) Cf) also A,olo!y *8bPcG #rota!oras, *18aG #haedrus, *//dPe)
41) For a variety of ,ers,ectives on the Socratic ,roblem see A)) Taylor, Socrates 5dinbur!h$
dinbur!h "niversity #ress, &8116 ,,) &1&P/2G #aul Friedl_nder, #lato ', o,) cit), ,,) &*4P14G
=re!ory Mlastos, Socratic Studies 5Cambrid!e and >e? Eork$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress,
&8826, ,,) &P1/)
42) Derrida talks of the ,ermanence of a #latonic schema that assi!ns the ori!in and ,o?er of
s,eech, ,recisely of lo!os, to the ,aternal ,osition)0 5/46
43) =)R)F) Ferrari almost !oes so far as to endorse this reversal of the conventional association
of Bin! Thamus ?ith the #latonic vie?,oint$ 0'f anythin!, the ,hiloso,her is a combination of
Thoth, the inventor, and Ammon, the jud!e of arts ) ) ) for by attem,tin! to jud!e the !ood life,
the ,hiloso,her brin!s it into bein!)0A=)R)F) Ferrari, .istenin! to the Cicadas$ A Study of #latos
0#haedrus0 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(/6, ,) *(&, n) *3)
44) This ,osition is articulated in Ronna Bur!er, #lato0s #haedrus$ A Defence of a #hiloso,hic Art
of -ritin! 5Alabama$ "niversity of Alabama #ress, &8(+6) >eo,latonic thinkers also ,ro,osed that
the #haedrus ultimately defends the #latonic ?ritin!$ 0A >eo,latonic treatise refers to the a,oretic
dilemma ,resented by the fact that ?hile the master in the #haedrus s,oke so dis,ara!in!ly
about ?ritin!, he still considered his o?n ?orks as ?orthy of bein! ?ritten do?n) As a solution, it
is ,ro,osed that he also tried to follo? the deity in this res,ect) Dust as the deity created both the
invisible and ?hat is visible to our senses, so he, too, ?rote do?n many thin!s and transmitted
others un?ritten)0A#aul Friedl_nder, #lato ', o,) cit), ,) &*2)
4/) 0The authority of truth, of dialectics, of seriousness, of ,resence, ?ill not be !ainsaid at the
close of this admirable movement, ?hen #lato, after havin! in a sense rea,,ro,riated ?ritin!,
,ushes his ironyAand his seriousnessAto the ,oint of rehabilitatin! a certain form of ,lay)0 5&326
This admirable movement, thou!h, is countenanced by 0#lato0s #harmacy0 only insofar as it
avoids the Socratic reca,itulation 5#haedrus, */(bPd6)
4() Derrida is a?are that the issue is also one of social orderin!, of morality and the city) 'ndeed,
near the start he dra?s attention to ,recisely ?hat his readin! ?ill by,ass in favour of a reflection
on the meta,hysical dynamics of the s,eechK?ritin! issue$ 0the @uestion of ?ritin! o,ens as a
@uestion of morality) 't is truly morality that is at stake, both in the sense of the o,,osition
bet?een !ood and evil, or !ood and bad, and in the sense of mores, ,ublic morals and social
conventions) 't is a @uestion of kno?in! ?hat is done and ?hat is not done) This moral dis@uiet is
in no ?ay to be distin!uished from @uestions of truth, memory and dialectics) This latter @uestion,
?hich ?ill @uickly be en!a!ed as the @uestion of ?ritin!, is closely associated ?ith the morality
theme, and indeed develo,s it by affinity of essence and not by su,erim,osition)0 5/26 9enceforth,
ho?ever, the meta,hysical theme ?ill every?here subordinate the ethical concerns of the
#haedrus)
48) 9avin! @uestioned the e,ic, lyric and dramatic ,oets as to the meanin! of their ?ork,
Socrates lamented$ 0't is hardly an e;a!!eration to say that any of the bystanders could have
e;,lained those ,oems better than their actual authors ) ) ) ' decided that it ?as not ?isdom that
enabled them to ?rite their ,oetry, but a kind of instinct or ins,iration, such as you find in seers
and ,ro,hets ?ho deliver all their sublime messa!es ?ithout kno?in! in the least ?hat they
mean) 't seemed clear to me that the ,oets ?ere in much the same case, and ' also observed
that the very fact that they ?ere ,oets made them think that they had a ,erfect understandin! of
all other subjects, of ?hich they ?ere totally i!norant)0 5A,olo!y **bPc6 This an;iety is
com,arable to the #haedrus0s concerns that ?ritin! ?ill allo? men of o,inion 5do;a6 to be taken
as authorities 5*/3aPb6) -hat Socrates encounters in the case of a ,oetic te;t is a structure of
?ords ?hich is @uite unres,onsive in s,ite of its havin! been s,oken, one ?hich cannot e;,lain
itself and if @uestioned kee,s re,eatin! the same ans?er over and over a!ain, much as ?ritten
?ords 0!o on tellin! you just the same thin! forever0) 5#haedrus, */3d6
/+) <n Socrates as critic of ,oetry, see >ickolas #a,,as, 0Socrates0 Charitable Treatment of
#oetry0, #hiloso,hy and .iterature, vol) &1, no) * 5&8(86, ,,) *2(P4&)
/&) 0<ne of the main effects of this transitional section is to ?iden the area of discussion$ not just
s,eech:?ritin! as defined by .ysias0 activity, but s,eakin! and ?ritin! of all kinds)0AC)D) Ro?e,
#lato$ #haedrus, ?ith Translation and Commentary, o,) cit), ,) &8*) Ro?e also adds$ 0'f the
ensuin! discussion be!ins ?ith .ysias, it ends by bein! ?holly !eneral0 5ibid), ,) &816)
/*) Ferrari also confirms this !eneral observation, notin! that 0s,eech0 is often 0shorthand for
00s,eakin! and ?ritin!OG for ISocratesJ shifts bet?een labels ?ithout makin! a ,oint of the
difference)0A=)R)F) Ferrari, .istenin! to the Cicadas, o,) cit), ,) *//, n) &)
/1) C)D) Ro?e comments on *38e&P*/2b3$ 0Throu!hout this section, s,eakin! and ?ritin! are
taken to!etherG OrhetoricO is to be understood as includin! both ) ) ) 'n =reek as in n!lish,
?hat is ?ritten, as ?ell as ?hat is actually s,oken, can be described as 00saidO 5le!omenon6$ so,
e)!), in *38e2P3 Othin!s that are !oin! to be saidO should be read as Othin!s that are !oin! to be
?ritten andKor saidO)0AC)D) Ro?e, #lato$ #haedrus, ?ith Translation and Commentary, o,) cit),
,,) &82P3) Cf) also ,) *+(G ,) *&&$ ,) *&2)
/2) Derrida ,asses over this section ?ithout citation) 9e concedes that Socrates is not overtly
hostile to ?ritin! at this moment, but ne!lects to mention that s,eech and ?ritin! are considered
under the same headin!$ 0Socrates still has a neutral attitude$ ?ritin! is not in itself a shameful,
indecent, infamous 5aiskhron6 activity) <ne is dislionoured only if one ?rites in a dishonourable
manner) But ?hat does it mean to ?rite in a dishonourable manner70 54(6 Rather than ?ait around
to ans?er its o?n @uestion, 0#lato0s #harmacy0 then ,roceeds to a discussion of the myth of the
cicadas)
/3) 'n this closin! section, 5&34P/&6 Derrida @uotes at considerable len!th from the .a?s,
Re,ublic, Timaeus, and So,hist but does not see fit to return to the #haedrus, least of to !ive
notice of the @ualified rehabilitation of ?ritin! at */(bPd)
/4) 0The best sense of ,lay is ,lay that is su,ervised and contained ?ithin the safe!uards of
ethics and ,olitics) This is ,lay com,rehended under the innocent, innocuous cate!ory of OfunO)
Amusement$ ho?ever far off it may be, the common translation of ,aidia by ,astime ) ) ) no
doubt only hel,s consolidate the #latonic re,ression of ,lay)0 5&346 Robin renders
0divertissement0G in 9ackforth ,aidia is here !iven as 0,astime0G Ro?e translates as 0amusement0G
9amilton translates the remark as 0the literary discussion ?ith ?hich ?e have been amusin!
ourselves)0 See .Lon Robin, #laton, <euvres Com,lVtes 'M 1$ #hQdre, o,) cit)G C)D) Ro?e, #lato$
#haedrus, ?ith Translation and Commentary, o,) cit)G #lato, #haedrus and Seventh and i!hth
.etters, trans) -alter 9amilton 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin, &8/16)
//) Dac@ues Derrida, %ar!insAof #hiloso,hy, trans) Alan Bass 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester, &8(*6, ,)
1&4)
/() 'n the uthy,hro Socrates laments the fact that his lo!oi are mobile rather than static$ 0the
rarest thin! about my talent is that ' am an un?illin! artist, since ' ?ould rather see our ar!uments
stand fast and hold their !round than have the art of Daedalus ,lus all the ?ealth of Tantalus to
boot)0 5uthy,hro, && dPe6
/8) <ne mi!ht even sus,ect that a forcefield has build u, around these ?ords) >ot only Derrida
but critics such as Ferrari and Bur!erA?ho ,resent their theses in the form of runnin!
commentariesAdo not re!ister the immense si!nificance of this ,assa!e) Des,ite ar!uin! for the
stron!est ironic readin!Aone ?hich sees #lato as consciously and deliberately defendin! his
,ractice of ,hiloso,hical ?ritin!ABur!er a,,lies these ?ords self:refle;ively and thus does not
re!ister their im,ort for the ,ractice of ?ritin! in !eneral 5Ronna Bur!er, #lato0s #haedrus, ,,)
&+3P46) ven Ferrari says little more of it beyond 5ri!htly6 notin!$ 0the dan!ers of the ?ritten ?ord
are defused) <ne ?ho is not reliant on the ?ritten ?ord for understandin!, ?ho has no false
e;,ectations of it, and ?ho is able to su,,lement its inade@uacies in s,eech may ?rite about
?hat matters to him ) ) ) and yet merit the title O,hiloso,herO0A=)R)F) Ferrari, .istenin! to the
Cicadas, o,) cit ,,) *+3P4)
(+) Aristotle, De So,histicis lenchis, trans) -)A) #ickard:Cambrid!e in -)D) Ross, ed), The
-orks of Aristotle, vol) & 5<;ford$ Clarendon, &8*(6, &/&b13P&/*a*G &/*a*1P11)
(&) See %artin lsky, Authorisin! -ords$ S,eech, -ritin!, and #rint in the n!lish Renaissance
5'thaca and .ondon$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(86, ,,) (P12) lsky0s landmark study e;hibits
dee, sce,ticism to?ard Derrida0s deconstruction of lo!ocentrism$ 0the deconstructive certification
that Renaissance lan!ua!e theory, is incoherent and its attendant claim that s,eech is reducible
to ?ritin! and ?ritin! to s,eech !losses over ,henomena of major im,ortance in the history of
lan!ua!e and literature ) ) ) The deconstructive attem,t to bury these distinctions beneath
assertions of incoherence ?ould render invisible conce,ts of !reat historicalAand currentA
interest)0 5ibid ,) 16
(*) 'bid), ,)11) lsky also hi!hli!hts those moments in the Renaissance ?hen ?ritin! is elevated
above s,eech, as in the 5hetero!eneous6 instances of Francis Bacon and =eor!e 9erbert 5ibid),
,,) &&+P*+(6)
(1) -illiam of <ckham, <ckham0s Theory of terms$ #art ' of the Summa .o!icae, trans) %ichael
D) .ou; 5>otre Dame$ "niversity of >otre Dame #ress, &8/26, ,)8)
(2) Derrida even cites the relevant lines of the discredited Second .etter, althou!h he does so
only under the shelter of a closin! fantasy 5&/+P&6 ?hich 5,resumably6 does not ?ish to be
jud!ed on scholarly terms) 9e dramatises the citation thus$ 0' ho,e this one ?on0t !et lost) Ruick,
a du,licate ) ) ) !ra,hite ) ) ) carbon ) ) ) reread this letter ) ) ) burn it)0 5&/&6
(3) <n one of the occasions ?hen 0#lato0s #harmacy0 cites the .a?s, an effect of multi,le
translationKcitation is ,roduced) <n ,a!e &*& of the essay, the follo?in! ,assa!e from the .a?s
is cited from the #rinceton edition in A)) Taylor0s translation$ 0consider all other discourse, ,oesy
?ith its eulo!ies and its satires, or utterances in ,rose, ?hether in literature or in the common
converse of daily life, ?ith their contentious disa!reements and their too often unmeanin!
admissions) The one certain touchstone of all is the ?ritin!s of the le!islator 5ta tou nomothetou
!rammata6) The !ood jud!e ?ill ,ossess those ?ritin!s ?ithin his o?n soul 5ha dei ketemenon en
hautoi6 as antidotes 5ale;i,harmaka6 a!ainst other discourse, and thus he ?ill be the state0s
,reserver as ?ell as his o?n)0 5.a?s, 83/d6 The em,hases are DerridaK Dohnson0s but they also
mark a de,arture from Taylor0s translation) -ere the cited ,assa!e to remain in Taylor0s
renderin!, then the em,hassised te;t ?ould read$ 0The !ood jud!e ?ill ,ossess the te;t ?ithin his
o?n breast as an antidote a!ainst other discourse0 5.a?s, 83/d2P36) <nce a!ain, the
,harmaceutical readin! ?ills 0?ritin!0 in #lato to denote the meta,hysical notion of 0?ritin! in the
soul0)
(4) Derek Attrid!e, 0'ntroduction0 in Dac@ues Derrida, Acts of .iterature, ed) Derek Attrid!e 5>e?
Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &88*6, ,,) &P*8$ ,) &3)
(/) Christo,her >orris, Reclaimin! Truth$ Contribution to a Criti@ue of Cultural Relativism
5.ondon$ .a?rence ` -ishart, &8846, ,) *13) 't must be said, ho?ever, that >orris ?ould see the
value of Derrida0s intervention in terms of ,hiloso,hic ri!our rather than ,oetic ,erformativity)
(() Dac@ues Derrida, 0This Stran!e 'nstitution Called .iterature0 in Dac@ues Derrida, Acts of
.iterature, o,) cit), ,,) 11P/3$ ,) 4()
(8) Derrida talks on numerous occasions of 0the affinity bet?een ?ritin! and mythos created by
their common o,,osition to lo!os0 5&23, n) 486, but he does so in order to see ?ritin! rather than
myth as the ,rimary focus of #lato0s an;ieties) %yth can be a form of ?ritin!, of course, but it is as
muthos rather than as ?ritin! that it encounters #lato0s condemnation)
8+) <n #lato0s criti@ue of the tendency of oral ,oetry to ,ro,a!ate une;amined do!mas see ric
A) 9avelock, #reface to #lato 5Cambrid!e, %A and .ondon$ Belkna, #ress of 9arvard "niversity
#ress, &8416)
8&) Dac@ues Derrida, #oints ) ) ) $ 'ntervie?s, &8/2P&882, ed) lisabeth -eber, trans) #e!!y
Barmuf et al) 5Stanford$ Stanford "niversity #ress, &8836, ,) &8() The above em,hasis is mine)
8*) 9arold Bloom, Babbalah and Criticism 5>e? Eork$ Seabury #ress, &8(36, ,) &+2)
81) Dac@ues Derrida, %ar!ins of #hiloso,hy, o,) cit), ,) &2)
82) <n the relationshi, bet?een the .evinasian and Derridean notions of the trace, see Robert
Bernasconi, 0The Trace of .evinas in Derrida0 in David -ood and Robert Bernasconi, eds),
Derrida and DiffLrance 5-ar?ick$ #arousia #ress, &8(36, ,,) &**P18)
83) Derrida uses this ,hrase in describin! the 0subtle nuances0 by ?hich diffLrance differs from
9e!elian difference) See Dac@ues Derrida, #ositions, o,) cit), ,) 22)
84) After Derrida0s o,enin! remarks, the essay 0DiffLrance0 ,roceeds as a se@uence of short
readin!s of Saussure, 9e!el, >ietFsche, Freud and 9eide!!er, ?ith an im,ortant !lance at
.evinas) The essay itself, amon!st other thin!s, serves as the clearest testament of Derrida0s
influences, or borro?in!s) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0DiffLrance0, o,) cit)
8/) Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin! and Difference, o,) cit), ,) ;iii)
8() Dac@ues Derrida, #ositions, ,) 4)
88) Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin! and Difference, o,) cit), ,) 1*)
&++) See Dac@ues Derrida, Dissemination, o,) cit), ,,) &48P/& for the theatrical finale of 0#lato0s
#harmacy0)
&+&) <n the nomocentricity of Derrida0s later ?ork, see =re!ory .) "lmer, A,,lied =rammatolo!y$
#ost5e6:,eda!o!y from Dac@ues Derrida to Dose,h Beuys 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity
#ress, &8(36) ,,) &*3P2&)
&+*) Dac@ues Derrida, S,ecters of %ar;, trans) #e!!y Bamuf 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e,
&8826, ,) ;v)
&+1) See Dac@ues Derrida, Si!nL,on!eKSi!ns,on!e trans) Richard Rand 5>e? Eork$ Columbia
"niversity #ress, &8(26G and Dissemination, o,) cit), ,,) *(/P144)
&+2) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0<tobio!ra,hies$ >ietFsche and the #olitics of the #ro,er >ame0 in
Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther) <tobio!ra,hy, Transference, Translation$ Te;ts and
Discussions ?ith Dac@ues Derrida trans) #e!!y Bamuf and Avital Ronell 5>e? Eork$ Schocken
Books, &8(46 ,,) &P1() See also Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card, o,) cit), ,,) *3/P2+8, for
Derrida0s inter,retation of Freud) <ne of the main concerns in this latter ?ork is to address the
follo?in! @uestion$ 0ho? can an autobio!ra,hical ?ritin!, in the abyss of an unterminated self:
analysis, !ive to a ?orld?ide institution its birth70 Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card, o,) cit), ,) 1+3)
<n the si!nificance of Freud0s ,ro,er name see 0Freud0s .e!acy ibid), ,,) *8*P1/) lucidatin! his
nomocentric inter,retation, Derrida later said$ 0'n ?ritin! Beyond the #leasure #rinci,le, Freud is
?ritin! a te;tual testament not only as re!ards his o?n name and his o?n family, but as re!ards
the analytic movement ?hich he also constructed in a certain fashion, that is, as a !reat
inheritance, a !reat institution bearin! his name) The history of the analytic movement has to deal
?ith that) 't is an institution that can0t !et alon! ?ithout Freud0s name, a ,ractical and theoretical
science ?hich must for once come to terms and e;,lain itself ?ith its founder0s name)
%athematics, ,hysics, et cetera, mi!ht on occasion celebrate the name of a !reat ,hysicist or a
!reat mathematician, but the ,ro,er name is not a structural ,art of the cor,us of the science or
the scientific institution) #sychoanalysis, on the other hand, has been inherited from Freud and
accounts for itself ?ith the structure of this inheritance) ' think that one must finally deci,her his
te;t by means of these @uestions$ the @uestions of the inheritance, of the ,ro,er name, of the
fortKda infinitely e;ceedin! the limits of the te;t)0 Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther, o,) cit), ,)
/&) Derrida0s rereadin! of Freud ?ill be discussed in the conclusion)
&+3) See Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther, o,) cit), es,ecially ,,) 2P&8)
&+4) Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther, o,) cit), ,) 1+)
&+/) 'ndeed, the ?orst dreams of #latonism are recurrin! in this conte;t of the ethically
overdetermined scene of >ietFsche0s rece,tion history) -e ?itness here ?ritin!0s inability to so?
its 0seeds in suitable soil0, 5#haedrus, */4b6 its failure to 0address the ri!ht ,eo,le, and not
address the ?ron!0, 5*/3e6 its ,roclivity for bein! 0ill:treated and unfairly abused0 5*/3e6 its
availability to 0those ?ho have no business ?ith it0) 5*/3e6
&+() Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card, o,) cit), back cover)
&+8) Christo,her >orris, for instance, ?rites$ 0it is ,ointless to ask ?ho is s,eakin! in any !iven
,art of this te;t, ?hether 9e!el, =enet, Derrida i,se or some other !hostly interte;tual 0,resence0)
For there is no last ?ord, no metalan!ua!e, or voice of authorial control that ?ould ultimately
serve to adjudicate the matter)0 Christo,her >orris, Derrida, o,) cit), ,) 42)
&&+) Dac@ues Derrida, in an intervie? ?ith 'nne SalusinsFky, in 'rme SalusinsFky, ed), Criticism in
Society 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(/6, ,,) /P*2$ ,,) **P1)
&&&) %ichel Foucault, 0#ostscri,t$ an 'ntervie? ?ith %ichel Foucault by Charles Raus0, in %ichel
Foucault, Death and the .abyrinth$ The -orld of Raymond Roussel, trans) Charles Raus
5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(/6, ,) &(4)
&&*) Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card, o,) cit), ,) &82)
&&1) Dac@ues Derrida, %Lmoires$ For #aul de %an, trans) Cecile .indsay, Donathan Culler and
duardo Cadava 5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(46, ,) 1)
Conclusion$ Critic And Author
&) Si!mund Freud, Art and .iterature, vol) &2 of the #elican Freud .ibrary, ed) Albert Dickson
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8(36, ,) 4+)
*) See #lato, The Re,ublic, trans) 9)#) D .ee 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin, &8336, ,,) 1/+P(4) A
similar contradiction is also encountered in the #latonic re,udiation of the ,oets and the
discourses of the death of the author since, just as #lato ?as himself obli!ed to use ,oetic
devices in the elaboration of a ,ure ,hiloso,hy, so too have theorists fallen back into subjective
cate!ories even and es,ecially as they ,ronounce subjectivity dead)
1) For de %an0s readin! of Rousseau, see #aul de %an, Alle!ories of Readin!$ Fi!ural .an!ua!e
in Rousseau, >ietFsche, Rilke and #roust 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/86, ,,) &11P
1+&)
2) As #aul de %an ar!ues in his ?ork durin! the &84+s) See #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$
ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism, second edition, revised and enlar!ed, ed) -lad
=odFich 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(16, ,assim)
3) Roland Barthes, Criticism and Truth, trans) B)#) Beuneman 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(/6, ,)
//)
4) Roland Barthes, SKN, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Donathan Ca,e, &8/+6, ,) &2+)
/) Roland Barthes, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, trans) and ed) Ste,hen 9eath 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8//6, ,)
&2*)
() See 9arold Bloom, The An;iety of 'nfluence$ A Theory of #oetry 5>e? Eork and .ondon$
<;ford "niversity #ress, &8/16G Babbalah and Criticism 5>e? Eork$ Seabury #ress, &8/36G A %a,
of %isreadin! 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &8/36G #oetry and Re,ression$
Revisionism from Blake to Stevens 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/46) #erha,s
unironically, Bloom0s theory has thus far been ?ithout influence)
8) -ilde0s dialo!ic essay 0The Critic as Artist0 remains the most ele!ant statement of the creativity
of critical ,rose, as ?ell as one of its finest e;am,les) See <scar -ilde, 0The Critic as Artist0,
Com,lete -orks of <scar -ilde 5.ondon and =las!o?$ Collins, &82(6, ,,) &++8P38)
&+) This a,,lies not only to introductory ?orks, but to more advanced criticisms also) See, for
e;am,le, Annette .avers, Roland Barthes$ Structuralism and After 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(*6G
Alan Sheridan, %ichel Foucault$ The -ill to Truth 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8(+6G 'rene ) 9arvey,
Derrida and the conomy of DiffLrance 5Bloomin!ton$ 'ndiana "niversity #ress, &8(46)
&&) See =eoffrey 9artman, Criticism in the -ilderness$ The Study of .iterature Today 5>e?
9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8(+6 ,,) &(8P*&1)
&*) 'bid), ,) *+2)
&1) 'bid), ,) *+4)
&2) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0dmund DabQs and the Ruestion of the Book0 in -ritin! and
Difference, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(&6, ,,) 42P/() 9ere
Derrida describes his labour as that of 0addin! ,itiful !raffiti to an immense ,oem0) 5/46
&3) %ichel Foucault, Death and the .abyrinth$ The -orld of Raymond Roussel, trans) Charles
Raus 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(/6)
&4) 'n ?hat follo?s ?e shall be concerned mainly ?ith the effect of the death of the author u,on
American criticism, and in its deconstructionist modes in ,articular) 9o?ever, much of ?hat has
occurred in America has been ,aralleled by the n!lish critical scene, in that the anti:authorialism
of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida has been utilised to facilitate a return to methods of ,ractical
criticism ?hich by,ass the issue of authorial subjectivity) The ,hrase 0An!lo:American tradition0 is
not used here to desi!nate a monolithic body of criticism, nor even a strictly !eo!ra,hic situation,
but as a ,rovisional shorthand for a ,articular rece,tion:history)
&/) =eor!es #oulet, 0Criticism and the ;,erience of 'nteriority0 in Richard %acksey and u!enio
Donato, eds), The Structuralist Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of %an
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity) #ress, &8/*6, ,,) 34P/*$ ,) /*)
&() =eor!es #oulet) The 'nterior Distance, trans) lliott Coleman 5Ann Arbor, %ich)$ "niversity of
%ichi!an #ress, &8426, ,) viii)
&8) #aul de %an, Blindness and 'nsi!ht, o,) cit), ,) */)
*+) 'bid), ,) *3)
*&) lbid), ,) 3+)
**) See 0'm,ersonality in the Criticism of %aurice Blanchot0, ibid, ,,) 4+P/()
*1) D) 9illis %iller, The Disa,,earance of =od 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress,
&8416, ,) vii)
*2) D) 9illis %iller, 0The =eneva School0, %odern French Criticism$ From #rotest and MalLry to
Structuralism, ed) Dohn B) Simon 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8/*6, ,,) *//P1&+$ ,)
*(*)
*3) D) 9illis %iller, 0The .iterary Criticism of =eor!es #oulet0, %odern .an!ua!e >otes, /( 5&8416,
,,) 2/&P(($ ,,) 2(+P&)
*4) D) 9illis %iller, Charles Dickens$ The -orld of his >ovels, o,) cit), ,) i;)
*/) See D) 9illis %iller, 0The =eneva School0, o,) cit)
*() See Richard %acksey, and u!enio Donato, eds, The Structuralist Controversy o,) cit), for
the
,roceedin!s of this sym,osium)
*8) See Dac@ues Derrida, 0Structure, Si!n, and #lay in the Discourse of the 9uman Sciences0 in
The Structuralist Controversy) o,) cit), ,,) *2/P*43) Also collected in Dac@ues Derrida, -ritin!
and Difference, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Routled!e ` Be!an #aul, &8(&6 ,,) */(P81)
1+) See #aul de %an, 0The .iterary Self as <ri!in$ The -ork of =eor!es #oulet0, Blindness and
'nsi!ht, o,) cit) ,,) /8P&+&)
1&) See #aul de %an, 0The Rhetoric of Blindness0 ibid), ,,) &+*P2&)
1*) See #aul de %an, Alle!ories of Readin!, o,) cit), ,,) &11P1+&)
11) D) 9illis %iller, 0Ariachne0s Broken -oof, =eor!ia Revie?, 1& 5&8//6, ,,) 22P4+$ ,) 3&)
12) Dac@ues Derrida, 0Discussion0 in The Structuralist Controversy, o,) cit), ,,) *43P/*$ ,) */&)
13) Dac@ues Derrida, 0Structure) Si!n and #lay0, ibid), ,) *42)
14) Dac@ues Derrida, 0Freud and the Scene of -ritin!0, -ritin! and Difference, o,) cit), ,,) &84P
*1&)
1/) The ,hrase 0re!ion of historicity0 is the one ?hich Derrida uses to describe the situation of the
,artici,ants and collo@uists at the Dohns 9o,kins conference) See 0Structure, Si!n and #lay0, The
Structuralist Controversy, o,) cit), ,) *43) 9o?ever, as has become a,,arent, the historicity of the
French and An!lo:American traditions are by no means as conver!ent as Derrida ,resumes here)
1() Christo,her >orris, The Contest of Faculties$ #hiloso,hy and Theory After Deconstruction
5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(36, ,) **1)
18) 'n very different ?ays, naturally, but it is nonetheless ,lausible to see the free,layin!
te;tualism of 9artman, and the austere, conse@uent te;tualism of de %an as diver!ent
develo,ments from a common basis in the >e? te;tual ethic of disen!a!in! criticism from any
direct social, historical and ,olitical issues in ,ursuit of the inherent ambi!uities, and rhetorical
features of literature)
2+) ' do not refer here to the ?ork of 9)#) =rice or that of discourse analysts such as Deirdre
-ilson and Dan S,erber, ?hose ,ainstakin! researches have yet to be absorbed ?ithin critical
theory)
2&) 0-hat a te;t means and ?hat its author intends it to mean are identical and ) ) ) their identity
robs intention of any theoretical interest0$ 0The idea of intention is useless as a !uide to ,ractice0G
0Since it ,rovides no hel, in choosin! amon! critical ,rocedures, the idea of intention is
methodolo!ically useless)0 Steven Bna,, and -alter Benn %ichaels, in -)D)T) %itchell, ed),
A!ainst Theory$ .iterary Studies and the >e? #ra!matism 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress,
&8(36, ,,) &8, &+&, &+2)
2*) Friedrich >ietFsche, cce 9omo$ 9o? <ne Becomes -hat <ne 's, trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/86, ,) &*()
21) 0The name Moltaire on a ?ritin! by meAthat really ?as ,ro!ressAto?ards myself Friedrich
>ietFsche, cce 9omo$ 9o? <ne Becomes -hat <ne 's, o,) cit), ,) (8) <n the ,recedin! ,a!e
>ietFsche also claims that his ?ritin!s on Scho,enhauer are most fundamentally
autobio!ra,hical, that the name 0Scho,enhauer0 had functioned as another mask of >ietFsche)
22) 'bid), ,) &12) For interestin! deconstructive readin!s of the inscri,tion of the >ietFschean
subject in cce 9omo, see Dac@ues Derrida, The ar of the <ther$ <tobio!ra,hy, Transference,
Translation$ Te;ts and Discussions ?ith Dac@ues Derrida I&8(2J, trans) #e!!y Bamuf and Avital
Ronell 5>e? Eork$ Schoken Books, &8(46, ,,) &P1(G and %ichael Ryan, 0The Act0, =ly,h ''
5&8/(6, ,,) 42P(/)
23) See Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card$ From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans) Alan Bass
5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6, ,,) *3/P2+8)
24) See Si!mund Freud, Beyond the #leasure #rinci,le in <n %eta,sycholo!y$ the Theory of
#sychoanalysis, vol) && of the #elican Freud .ibrary, ed) An!ela Richards 59armonds?orth$
#en!uin Books, &8(26, ,,) */3P11/) See ,,) *(1P/ for the recountin! of the fortKda e,isode) 'n
follo?in! Derrida0s readin! it is also very useful to consult Si!mund Freud, An Autobio!ra,hical
Study in vol) ]] of The Standard dition of the Com,lete #sycholo!ical -orks of Si!mund Freud,
ed) Dames Strachey 5.ondon$ 9o!arth #ress, &8386, ,,) 2P/2)
2/) Dac@ues Derrida, The #ost Card, o,) cit ,) 1&&)
2() 'bid), ,,) 1*+P&)
28) 'bid), ,) 1**)
3+) >aturally the @uestion of !ender is of the utmost im,ortance here, and raises issues vastly
beyond the sco,e of this ,articular ?ork) As Barbara Dohnson has observed, the very e;istence
of t?o se;es is sufficient of itself to break u, the idea of a unitary transcendental subjectivity) See
Barbara Dohnson, The Critical Difference 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8(+6) The
American theoretician, >ancy %iller, sees in ?omen0s historical e;clusion from meta,hysical
determinations of subjectivity the ,ossibility of a feminine rematerialisation of the subject$
0Because ?omen have not had the same historical relation of identity to ori!in, institution,
,roduction that men have had they have not ) ) ) felt burdened by too much Self, !o, Co!ito,
etc) Because the female subject has juridically been e;cluded from the ,olis, hence decentred,
0disori!inated0, deinstitutionalised, etc), her relation to inte!rity and te;tuality, desire and authority,
dis,lays structurally im,ortant differences from that universal ,osition)0 >ancy B) %iller, Subject to
Chan!e$ Readin! Feminist -ritin! 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8((6) Thou!h the relation of
feminism to the issues of author and !en5d6eric subjectivity have been scarcely touched u,on
here, the biblio!ra,hy cites many te;ts influential in formulatin! and debatin! the conce,ts of the
deaths of ?oman:as:author and -oman:as:?oman, the ideas of Lcriture feminine, the
deconstruction of the binarism male:female and so on) 'n !eneral, ?hat is said in this ?ork of the
death of the author a,,lies in !eneral to feminist thanato!ra,hy, but ?ould need to be
reformulated in accordance ?ith ethico:,olitical and ontolo!ical @uestions of ine;haustible
com,le;ity)
,ilo!ue
&) RL!is Debray, 0The Book as Symbolic <bject0 in =eoffrey >unber!, ed), The Future of the
Book 5Berkeley$ "niversity of California #ress, &8846, ,,) &18P&3&$ ,,) &23P&24)
*) =eor!e #) .ando?, 9y,erte;t$ The Conver!ence of Contem,orary Critical Theory and
Technolo!y 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &88*6) -hile more recent contributions
have been made to this conver!ence theory, .ando?0s ?ork continues to orient the debate 5cf)
Sadie #lant, belo?6) A more sce,tical 5and s,lendid6 account of the relations bet?een technolo!y
and authorshi, can be found in Dames Boyle, Shamans, Soft?are, and S,leens$ .a? and the
Construction of the 'nformation Society 59arvard$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &88/6)
1) R) .anham, The lectronic -ord$ Democracy, Technolo!y and the Arts 5Chica!o$ "niversity of
Chica!o #ress, &8826, ,) *1)
2) %ichel Foucault, The <rder of Thin!s$ An Archaeolo!y of the 9uman Sciences, trans) Alan
Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/+6, ,) ;;iv) 't should also be noted that di!ital ar!uments tend to
dra? u,on the most vul!ar and vul!arised tenets of 0,oststructuralism0)
3) This rhetoric is finely criti@ued in #aul Du!uid, 0%aterial %atters$ The #ast and Futurolo!y of
the Book0 in =eoffrey >unber!, ed), The Future of the Book, o,) cit), ,,) 41P&+&)
4) See %arshall %c.uhan, The =utenber! =ala;y$ The %akin! of Ty,o!ra,hic %an 5Toronto$
"niversity of Toronto #ress, &84*6G ric A) 9avelock, #reface to #lato 5Cambrid!e, %A$ Belkna,
#ress of 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8416G -alter D) <n!, <rality and .iteracy$ The
Technolo!iFin! of the -ord 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(*6)
/) Raffaele Simone, 0The Body of the Te;t0 in =eoffrey >unber!, ed), The Future of the Book, o,)
cit), ,,) *18P*3&$ ,) *2&G ,) *3&) >icole Eankelovich, >orman %eyro?itF and Andries van Dam,
0Readin! and -ritin! the lectronic Book0, ' Com,uter &( 5<ctober &8(36, ,,) &3P1+$ ,) *&)
() %ichael 9eim, lectronic .an!ua!e$ A #hiloso,hical Study of -ord #rocessin! 5>e? 9aven$
Eale "niversity #ress, &8(/6, ,) *&3)
8) See Dor!e .uis Bor!es, 0#ierre %enard$ Author of the Rui;ote0 in Bor!es, .abyrinths, edited by
Donald A) Eates and Dames ) 'rby 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin, &8/+6, ,,) 4*P/&)
&+) See Roman 'n!arden, The .iterary -ork of Art, trans) =eor!e =) =rabo?icF 5vanston$
>orth?estern "niversity #ress, &8/16)
&&) See Sadie #lant, Neros and <nes$ Di!ital -omen and the >e? Technoculture 5.ondon$
Fourth state, &88/6, ,) &82) #lant then bids us look at the %ona .isa ?ith eyes refocused by the
technolo!ical revolution$ 0The %ona .isa0s a,,eal is ,recisely the fact that the ima!e does more
than ,assively han! on the !allery ?all) As her s,ectators al?ays say, %ona .isa looks at them
as much as, if not more than, they can look at her) To the e;tent that it ?orks so ?ell, .eonardo0s
,icture is a ,iece of careful soft?are en!ineerin!) An interactive machine has been camoufla!ed
as a ?ork of -estern art0 5ibid)6)
&*) Raffaele Simone, 0The Body of the Te;t0 in =eoffrey >unber!, ed), The Future of the Book,
o,) cit), ,) *2+)
&1) See Dack Stillin!er, %ulti,le Authorshi, and the %yth of Solitary =enius 5>e? Eork and
<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &88&6) Stillin!er0s interestin! book, ho?ever, must succumb to
the myth of solitary !enius in order to reject it)
&2) =eor!e #) .ando?, 9y,erte;t, o,) cit), ,) 84)
&3) .uca Toshi, 09y,erte;t and Authorshi,0 in =eoffrey >unber!, ed), The Future of the Book, o,)
cit), ,,) &48P*+/$ ,) *+*)
&4) =eor!es #oulet, 0Criticism and the ;,erience of 'nteriority0 in Richard %acksey and u!enio
Donato, eds, The Structuralist Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of %an
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/*6, ,,) 34P/*$ ,) 34)
&/) =eoffrey >unber! in =eoffrey >unber!, ed) The Future of the Book, o,) cit), ,) &() >unber! is
here summarisin! Raffaele Simone0s ar!ument 5ibid), ,,) *18P3&6)
&() St Au!ustine, Confessions, trans) 9enry Chad?ick 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &88&6,
,,) 8*P1)
&8) See D) 9illis %iller, 0The thics of 9y,erte;t0, Diacritics, vol) *3, no) 1 5Fall &8836, ,,) */P18$
,) 13G =eor!es #oulet, .es %Ltamor,hoses du Cercle 5#aris$ #lon, &84&6)
*+) =eor!e #) .ando?, 9y,erte;t, o,) cit), ,) &/()
*&) Sadie #lant, Neros and <nes, o,) cit), ,,) &(8P8+) <f the connection bet?een ?eavin! and
com,utin!, she declares$ 0<n the com,uter monitor, any chan!e to the ima!e is also a chan!e to
the ,ro!ramG any chan!e to the ,ro!rammin! brin!s another ima!e to the screen) This is the
continuity of ,roduct and ,rocess at ?ork in the te;tiles ,roduced on the loom) The ,ro!ram, the
ima!e, the ,rocess, and the ,roduct$ these are all the soft?ares of the loom) Di!ital fabrications
can be endlessly co,ied ?ithout fadin! into inferiorityG ,atterns can be ,leated and re,eat,
re,licated folds across a screen) .ike all te;tiles, the ne? soft?ares have no essence, no
authenticity0 5ibid), ,) &(86) The meta,hor 5industrial art \ technolo!ical freedom6 no more
,romises feminist em,o?erment than the de,endence of cybers,ace on nautical ima!es
!uarantees the enfranchisement of Third -orld fishermen)
**) Fredric Dameson, The #olitical "nconscious$ >arrative as a Socially Symbolic Act 5'thaca$
Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(&6, ,) *+)
*1) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak, The #ost:Colonial Critic$ 'ntervie?s, Strate!ies, Dialo!ues, ed)
Sarah 9arasym 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &88+6, ,) &31)
*2) <n the false o,,osition bet?een 0a vie? from no?here0 and 0a vie? from every?here0, see
#atricia -au!h, 0Feminism and #ostmodernism0 in s Dackson and Dackie Dones, eds,
Contem,orary Feminist Theories 5dinbur!h$ dinbur!h "niversity #ress, forthcomin! &88(6) 'n
its movement from subjective to lin!uistic disembodiment, di!ital technolo!y follo?s the trajectory
of a vul!ar ,oststructuralism 5see also note 2 above6) <ne mi!ht indeed ?onder ?hether the
academic version of hy,erte;tual discourse is less the enthusiasm of di!ital technolo!ists than
the last stand of a 0?eak0 ,oststructuralism ?hich sees its o?n 5idealist6 ,reoccu,ations mirrored
in current material technolo!y)
*3) Seyla Benhabib, Situatin! the Self$ =ender, Community and #ostmodernism in Contem,orary
thics 5Cambrid!e$ #olity #ress, &88*6, ,) *&2)
*4) Derome D) %c=ann, The Beauty of 'nflections$ .iterary 'nvesti!ations in 9istorical %ethod and
Theory 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8((6, ,) &1&)
*/) See Ste,hen =reenblatt, Shakes,earean >e!otiations$ The Circulation of Social ner!y in
Renaissance n!land 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8((6, ,) *+) 'n less delicate hands, this
sideste,,in! of authorial cate!ories can seem like a reaction formation$ 0The hollo?ness of the
self that so enra!ed and demoralised ) ) ) no? ins,ires res,ect and study, not recrimination and
calls for revolution) >Ie?J 9IistoricismJ intiates a truly radical chan!e) 't acce,ts the inevitability of
em,tiness)0A9) Aram Meeser 0The >e? 9istoricism0 in 9) Aram Meeser,
ed), The >e? 9istoricism Reader 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &8826, ,,) &P1*$ ,) &8)
*() Derome D) %c=ann, The Beauty of 'nflections, o,) cit), ,) &*3)
*8) 'bid), ,) &&()
1+) Ste,hen =reenblatt, 0Resonance and -onder0, in #eter Collier and 9el!a =eyer:Ryan, eds,
.iterary Theory Today 5Cambrid!e$ #olity #ress, &88+6, ,,) /2P8$ ,) /2)
1&) <n modernity0s tendency to de,ict authorshi, in terms of a false o,,osition bet?een
transcendence and im,ersonality, see Sen Burke, 0Reconstructin! the Author0 in Sen Burke,
ed), Authorshi,$ From #lato to the #ostmodern$ A Reader 5dinbur!h$ dinbur!h "niversity
#ress, &8836, ,,) ;vP;;;)
1*) Cf) 'mmanuel Bant, A Criti@ue of #ure Reason, trans) >orman Bem, Smith 5.ondon$
%acmillan, &8116) %arjorie =reene has some e;cellent ,a!esAto ?hich the above is indebtedA
on the hollo?ness of the transcendental subject ,osition) See %arjorie =reene, The Bno?er and
the Bno?n 5.ondon$ Faber ` Faber, &8446, ,,) &*+P34)
11) %artin 9eide!!er, Bant and the #roblem of %eta,hysics, trans) D)S) Churchill 5Bloomin!ton$
'ndiana "niversity #ress, &84*6)
12) 9arold Bloom, The Breakin! of the Messels 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(*6, ,)
(*)
13) %ichel de %ontai!ne, ssays &$*+, trans) D)%) Cohen 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books,
&83(6)
Biblio!ra,hy
>ote$ A small number of ?orks cited in the te;t do not a,,ear here since they have no direct
bearin! on either the author:@uestion or literary studies) Accordin! to the same ,rinci,le, many
?orks ?hich have not been cited in the te;t are included belo? as su!!estions for further readin!)
Althusser, .ouis, For %ar;, trans) Ben Bre?ster 5.ondon$ Allen .ane, &8486)
Aristotle, De So,histicis lenchis, trans) -)A) #ickard:Cambrid!e in -)D) Ross, ed), The -orks
of Aristotle, vol) & 5<;ford$ Clarendon, &8*(6)
Auerbach, rich, %imesis$ The Re,resentation of Reality in -estern .iterature, trans) -illiam R)
Trask 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &8316)
Austin, D).), 9o? to Do Thin!s ?ith -ords 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &84*6)
Au!ustine, St, Confessions, trans) 9enry Chad?ick 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &88&6, ,,)
8*P1)
Ba!?ell, D) Timothy, American Formalism and the #roblem of 'nter,retation 59ouston, Te;as$
Rice "niversity #ress, &8(46)
Bakhtin, %ikhail, #roblems of Dostoyevsky0s #oetics, trans) R)-) Rotsel 5Ann Arbor, %ich)$
"niversity of %ichi!an #ress, &8/16)
Bann, Ste,hen and Dohn ) Bo?lt, Russian Formalism$ A Collection of Articles and Te;ts in
Translation 5dinbur!h$ Scottish Academic #ress, &8/16)
Bannet, ve Tavor, Structuralism and the .o!ic of Dissent$ Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, .acan
5.ondon and Basin!stoke$ %acmillan, &8(86)
Barthes, Roland, -ritin! De!ree Nero I&831J, trans) Annette .avers and Colin Smith 5.ondon$
Ca,e, &84/6)
Barthes, Roland, <n Racine I&841J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5>e? Eork$ <cta!on Books, &8//6)
Barthes, Roland, Critical ssays I&842J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5vanston$ >orth?estern
"niversity #ress, &8/*6)
Barthes, Roland, Criticism and Truth I&844J, trans) B)#) Beuneman 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress,
&8(/6)
Barthes, Roland, 0To -rite$ An 'ntransitive Merb70 I&844J, in Richard %acksey and u!enio
Donato, eds, The Structuralist Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of %an
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/*6, ,,) &12P23)
Barthes, Roland, SKN I&8/+J, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8/36)
Barthes, Roland, Sade Fourier .oyola I&8/&J, trans) Richard %iller 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8//6)
Barthes, Roland, >e? Critical ssays I&8/*J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5>e? Eork$ 9ill and -an!,
&8(+6)
Barthes, Roland, The #leasure of the Te;t I&8/1J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8/46)
Barthes, Roland, Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes I&8/3J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$
%acmillan, &8//6)
Barthes, Roland, A .over0s Discourse$ Fra!ments I&8//J, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Ca,e,
&8/86)
Barthes, Roland, 'ma!e:%usic:Te;t, trans) and ed) Ste,hen 9eath 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8//6)
Barthes, Roland, 0.ecture0 I&8/(J, trans) Richard 9o?ard, <;ford .iterary Revie?, vol) 2, no) *
5&8/86, ,,) 1&P22)
Barthes, Roland, Camera .ucida$ Reflections on #hoto!ra,hy I&8(+J, trans) Richard 9o?ard
5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(*6)
Barthes, Roland, The =rain of the Moice$ 'ntervie?s &84*P&8(+ I&8(*J, trans) .inda Coverdale
5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(36)
Barthes, Roland, A Barthes Reader, ed) Susan Sonta! 5.ondon$ Ca,e, &8(*6)
Barthes, Roland, The Semiotic Challen!e, trans) Richard 9o?ard 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8((6)
Battersby, Christine, =ender and =enius$ To?ards a Feminist Aesthetics 5.ondon$ The -omen0s
#ress, &8(86)
Beardsley, %onroe C), 0'ntentions and 'nter,retations0, in Beardsley, The Aesthetic #oint of Mie?
5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(*6)
Belsey, Catherine, Critical #ractice 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(+6)
Benhabib, Seyla, Situatin! the Self$ =ender, Community and #ostmodernism in Contem,orary
thics 5Cambrid!e$ #olity #ress, &88*6)
Benjamin, -alter, "nderstandin! Brecht, trans) Anna Bostock 5.ondon$ >.B, &8/16)
Benoist, Dean:%arie, The Structural Revolution 5.ondon$ -eidenfeld and >icolson, &8/(6)
Ber!er, =aston, The Co!ito in 9usserl0s #hiloso,hy, trans) Bathleen %c.au!hlin 5vanston$
>orth?estern "niversity #ress, &8/*6)
Betti!, Ronald M), Co,yri!htin! Culture$ The #olitical conomy of 'ntellectual #ro,erty 5-estvie?$
<;ford, &88/6)
Bhabha, 9omi B), 0The .ocation of Culture 5.ondon$ Routled!e, &8826)
Biriotti, %aurice and >icola %iller, eds, -hat is an Author7 5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity
#ress, &8816)
Bloom, 9arold, The An;iety of 'nfluence$ A Theory of #oetry 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ <;ford
"niversity #ress, &8/16)
Bloom, 9arold, Babbalah and Criticism 5>e? Eork$ Seabury #ress, &8/36)
Bloom, 9arold, A %a, of %isreadin! 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &8/36)
Bloom, 9arold, #oetry and Re,ression$ Revisionism from Blake to Stevens 5>e? 9aven$ Eale
"niversity #ress, &8/46)
Bloom, 9arold, A!on$ To?ard a Theory of Revisionism 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ <;ford "niversity
#ress, &8(*6)
Bloom, 9arold, The Breakin! of the Messels 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(*6)
Bolter, Day David, 0Mirtual Reality and the Redefinition of Self, in R) Dackson and S) =ibson, eds,
Communication and Cybers,ace$ Social 'nteraction in an lectronic nvironment 5>e? Eork$
9am,ton #ress, &8846)
Booth, -ayne C), The Rhetoric of Fiction 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &84*6)
Bor!es, Dor!e .uis, .abyrinths, ed) Donald A) Eates and Dames ) 'rby 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin
Books, &8/+6)
Boyle, Dames, Shamans, Soft?are, and S,leens$ .a? and the Construction of the 'nformation
Society 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &88/6)
Boyne, Roy, Foucault and Derrida$ The <ther Side of Reason 5.ondon$ "n?in 9yman, &88+6)
Brik, <si,, 0The so:called formal method0, in .)%) <0Toole and Ann Shukman, eds, Russian
#oetics in Translation 2 5Colchester$ "niversity of sse; #ress, &8//6, ,,) 8+P&)
Bruss, liFabeth -), Autobio!ra,hical Acts$ The Chan!in! Situation of a .iterary =enre
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/46)
Burke, Sen, Authorshi,$ From #lato to the #ostmodern$ A Reader 5dinbur!h$ dinbur!h
"niversity #ress, &8836)
Burke, Sen, 0The Te;tual state$ #lato and the thics of Si!nature0, 9istory of the 9uman
Sciences, vol) 8, no) & 5February &8846, ,,) 38P/*)
Butler, Christo,her, 'nter,retation, Deconstruction and 'deolo!y$ An 'ntroduction to Some Current
'ssues in .iterary Theory 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8(26)
Cain, -illiam ), The Crisis in Criticism$ Theory, .iterature and Reform in n!lish Studies
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8(26)
Carroll, David, 0The Subject of Archaeolo!y or the Soverei!nty of the ,isteme0, %odern
.an!ua!e >otes, 81, no) 2 5&8/(6, ,,) 483P/**)
Carroll, David, The Subject in Ruestion$ The .an!ua!es of Theory and the Strate!ies of Fiction
5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(*6)
Cau!hie, Dohn, ed), Theories of Authorshi,$ A Reader 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul,
&8(&6)
Cham,a!ne, Roland, Beyond the Structuralist %yth of Ucriture 5The 9a!ue$ %outon, &8//6)
Cham,a!ne, Roland, .iterary 9istory in the -ake of Roland Barthes$ Re:definin! the %yths of
Reality 5Alabama$ Summa #ublications 'nc), &8(26)
Ci;ous, 9LlQne, 0The .au!h of the %edusa0, trans) Beith Cohen and #aula Cohen, Si!ns, vol) &,
no) 2 5&8/46 ,,) (/3P82)
Clark, Tim, 0Roland Barthes, Dead and Alive0, <;ford .iterary Revie?, vol) 4, no) & 5&8(16, ,,)
8/P&+/)
ClLment, Catherine, The .ives and .e!ends of Dac@ues .acan, trans) Arthur =oldhammer 5>e?
Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(16)
Close, Anthony, 0The m,irical Author$ Salman Rushdie0s The Satanic Merses0, #hiloso,hy and
.iterature, vol) &2, no) * 5&88+6)
Colerid!e, Samuel Taylor, Bio!ra,hia .iteraria, ed) =) -atson 5.ondon$ Dent, &8436)
Collins, A)S), Authorshi, in the Days of Dohnson 5>e? Eork$ Dutton, &8*86)
Coomaras?amy, Ananda B), 0'ntention0, American Bookman, vol) &, no) & 5&8226, ,,) 2&P()
Corn!old, Stanley, The Fate of the Self$ =erman -riters and French Theory 5>e? Eork$
Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(46)
Corn!old, Stanley, 0#aul de %an on the Contin!encies of 'ntention0, in .uc 9erman, Bris
9umbeeck and =eert .ernout, eds, 5Dis6continuities$ ssays on #aul de %an 5Amsterdam$
Rodo,i, &8(86)
Couturier, %aurice, .a Fi!ure de l0auteur 5#aris$ ditions de Seuil, &8836)
Cre?e, Donathan, Trials of Authorshi,$ Anterior Forms and #oetic Reconstruction from -yatt to
Shakes,eare 5Berkeley$ "niversity of California #ress, &88+6)
Critchley, Simon, Mery .ittle ) ) ) Almost >othin!$ Death, #hiloso,hy, .iterature 5.ondon and >e?
Eork$ Routled!e, &88/6)
Culler, Donathan, Structuralist #oetics 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8/36)
Culler, Donathan, Barthes 5Fontana$ .ondon, &8(*6)
Culler, Donathan, <n Deconstruction 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(*6)
Delany, #aul and =eor!e #) .ando?, eds, 9y,ermedia and .iterary Studies 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$
%'T #ress, &88&6)
Dennett, Daniel C), 0Self:'nvention0, Times .iterary Su,,lement, &4P**, Se,tember &8((, ,,)
&,+&4G &,+*(P8)
Derrida, Dac@ues, 0S,eech and #henomena0 and <ther ssays on 9usserl0s Theory of Si!ns
I&84/J, trans) David B) Allison 5vanston$ >orth?estern "niversity #ress, &8/16)
Derrida, Dac@ues, <f =rammatolo!y I&84/J, trans) =ayatri Chakravorty S,ivak 5Baltimore$ Dohns
9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/46)
Derrida, Dac@ues, -ritin! and Difference I&84/J, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an
#aul, &8(&6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, Dissemination I&8/*J, trans) Barbara Dohnson 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(&6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, %ar!insAof #hiloso,hy I&8/*J, trans) Alan Bass 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress,
&8(*6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, #ositions I&8/*J, trans) Alan Bass 5.ondon$ Athlone #ress, &8(&6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, S,urKU,erons I&8/*J, trans) Barbara 9arlo? 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o
#ress, &8/86)
Derrida, Dac@ues, =las I&8/2J, trans) Dohn #) .eavey and Richard Rand 5.incoln, >ebraska$
"niversity of >ebraska #ress, &8(46)
Derrida, Dac@ues, Si!nL,on!eKSi!ns,on!e I&8/3J, trans) Richard Rand 5>e? Eork$ Columbia
"niversity #ress, &8(26)
Derrida, Dac@ues, 0Si!nature vent Conte;t0, trans) Samuel -eber and Deffrey %ehlman, =ly,h, '
5&8//6, ,,) &/*P8/)
Derrida, Dac@ues, 0.imited 'nc0, =ly,h, '' 5&8//6, ,,) &4*P*3&)
Derrida, Dac@ues, The #ost Card$ From Socrates to Freud and Beyond I&8(+J trans) Alan Bass
5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, The ar of the <ther$ <tobio!ra,hy, Transference, Translation$ Te;ts and
Discussions ?ith Dac@ues Derrida I&8(2J, trans) #e!!y Bamuf and Avital Ronell 5>e? Eork$
Schocken Books, &8(46)
Derrida, Dac@ues, <f S,irit$ 9eide!!er and the Ruestion I&8(/J, trans) =eoff Bennin!ton and
Rachel Bo?lby 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(86)
Derrida, Dac@ues, 0.ike the Sound of the Sea Dee, ?ithin a Shell$ #aul de %an0s -ar0, Critical
'n@uiry, vol) &*, no) 1 5S,rin! &8((6, ,,) 38+P43*)
Derrida, Dac@ues, 000atin! -ell00$ An 'ntervie?0 in -ho Comes after the Subject7, ed) duardo
Cadava, #eter Connor and Dean:.uc >ancy 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &88&6)
Derrida, Dac@ues, S,ecters of %ar;$ The State of the Debt, the -ork of %ournin! and the >e?
'nternational, trans) #e!!y Bamuf 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &8826)
Derrida, Dac@ues, #oints ) ) ) $ 'ntervie?s, &8/2P&882, ed) lisabeth -eber, trans) #e!!y Bamuf
et al) 5Stanford$ Stanford "niversity #ress, &8836)
Dery, %ark, ed), Flame -ars$ The Discourse of Cyberculture 5Durham, >C$ Duke "niversity
#ress, &8826)
Descartes, RenL, Discourse on %ethod and the %editations, trans) F)) Sutcliffe
59armnonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &84(6)
Descombes, Mincent, %odern French #hiloso,hy, trans) .) Scott:Fo; and D)%) 9ardin!
5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(+6)
Dreyfus, 9ubert .) and #aul Rabino?, %ichel Foucault$ Beyond Structuralism and 9ermeneutics
5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(*6)
Duff, -illiam, An ssay on <ri!inal =enius 5=ainsville, Florida$ Scholars0 Facsimiles, &8426)
Dunn, Bevin, #rete;ts of Authority$ The Rhetoric of Authorshi, in the Renaissance #reface
5Stanford$ "niversity of California #ress, &8826)
akin, #aul Dohn, Fictions in Autobio!ra,hy$ Studies in the Art of Self:'nvention 5#rinceton$
#rinceton "niversity #ress, &8(36)
co, "mberto, A Theory of Semiotics 5Bloomin!ton and .ondon$ 'ndiana "niversity #ress, &8/46)
de, .isa and Andrea .unsford, Sin!ular Te;tsK#lural Authors$ #ers,ectives on Collaborative
-ritin! 5Carbondale$ Southern 'llinois "niversity #ress, &88+6)
isenstein, liFabeth .), The #rintin! #ress as an A!ent of Chan!e$ Communications and
Cultural Transformations in arly:%odern uro,e 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress,
&8(+6)
liot, T)S), The Sacred -ood 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8*+6)
liot, T)S), 0Tradition and the 'ndividual Talent0, in The Sacred -ood$ ssays on #oetry and
Criticism 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8*+6, ,,) 2/P38)
llmann, %aud, The #oetics of 'm,ersonality$ T)S) liot and Fra #ound 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester,
&8(/6)
lsky, %artin, AuthoriFin! -ords$ S,eech, -ritin!, and #rint in the n!lish Renaissance 5'thaca
and .ondon$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(86)
rlich, Mictor, Russian Formalism$ 9istory:Doctrine 5The 9a!ue$ %outon, &8(+6)
Farias, Mictor, 9eide!!er and >aFism 5#hiladel,hia$ Tem,le "niversity #ress, &8(86)
Fel,erin, 9o?ard, Beyond Deconstruction$ The "ses and Abuses of .iterary Theory 5>e? Eork$
<;ford "niversity #ress, &8(36)
Fish, Stanley, 's There a Te;t in 0This Class7$ The Authority of 'nter,retive Communities
5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8(+6)
Fish, Stanley, Doin! -hat Comes >aturally$ Rhetoric and the #ractice of Theory in .iterary and
.e!al Studies 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8(86)
Forrester, Dohn, The Seductions of #sychoanalysis$ Freud, .acan and Derrida 5Cambrid!e$
Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &88&6)
Foucault, %ichel, %adness and CiviliFation$ A 9istory of 'nsanity in the A!e of Reason I&84&J,
trans) Richard 9o?ard 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &84/6)
Foucault, %ichel, The <rder of Thin!s$ An Archaeolo!y of the 9uman Sciences I&844J, trans)
Alan Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8/+6)
Foucault, %ichel, The Archaeolo!y of Bno?led!e I&848J, trans) A)%) Sheridan Smith 5.ondon$
Tavistock, &8/*6)
Foucault, %ichel, 0-hat is an Author70 I&848J, trans) DosuL M) 9arari, in DosuL M) 9arari, ed),
Te;tual Strate!ies$ #ers,ectives in #ost:Structuralist Criticism 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress,
&8/86, ,,) &2&P4+)
Foucault, %ichel, .an!ua!e, Counter:%emory, #ractice$ Selected ssays and 'ntervie?s, ed)
Donald F) Bouchard, trans) Donald F) Bouchard and Sherry Simon 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity
#ress, &8//6)
Foucault, %ichel, #o?erKBno?led!e$ Selected 'ntervie?s and <ther -ritin!s &8/*P&8//, ed)
Colin =ordon 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(+6)
Foucault, %ichel, 0After?ord$ The Subject and #o?er0, in 9ubert .) Dreyfus and #aul Rabino?,
%ichel Foucault$ Beyond Structuralism and 9ermeneutics 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(*6, ,,)
*+(P*4)
Foucault, %ichel, The Foucault Reader, ed) #aul Rabino? 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books,
&8(46)
Foucault, %ichel, The 9istory of Se;uality, trans) Robert 9urley, 1 vols 5>e? Eork$ Mikin! #ress,
&8(46)
Foucault, %ichel, #olitics, #hiloso,hy and Culture$ 'ntervie?s and <ther -ritin!s &8//P&8(2,
trans) Alan Sheridan and others, ed) .aurence D) BritFman 5>e? Eorks$ Routled!e, &8((6)
Foucault, %ichel, 0Technolo!ies of the Self0, in .)9) %artin, 9) =utman and #)9) 9utton, eds,
Technolo!ies of the Self 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8((6, ,,) &4P28)
Freud, Si!mund, Art and .iterature, vol) &2 of the #elican Freud .ibrary, ed) Albert Dickson
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8(36)
Furman, >elly, 0The #olitics of Difference$ Beyond the =ender #rinci,le0, in Sayle =reene and
Bahn Co,,elia, eds, %akin! a Difference$ Feminist .iterary Criticism 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(36,
,,) 38P/8)
=allo,, Dane, Readin! .acan 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(36)
=ane, %ike, ed), To?ards a Criti@ue of Foucault 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &8(46)
=aschL, Rodol,he, The Tain of the %irror$ Derrida and the #hiloso,hy of Reflection 5Cambrid!e,
%ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8(46)
=ass, -illiam, The -orld -ithin the -ord 5>e? Eork$ Alfred A) Bno,f 'nc), &8/86)
=ass, -illiam, 9abitations of the -ord 5>e? Eork$ Simon and Schuster, &8(36)
=eertF, Clifford, -orks and .ives$ The Anthro,olo!ist as Author 5Cambrid!e$ #olity #ress, &8((6)
=loversmith, Frank, ed), The Theory of Readin! 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(26)
=reene, %arjorie, The Bno?er and the Bno?n 5.ondon$ Faber ` Faber, &8446)
=reene, Sayle and Bahn Co,,elia, eds, %akin! a Difference$ Feminist .iterary Criticism 5.ondon$
%ethuen, &8(36)
=ilbert, Sandra %) and Susan =ubar, The %ad?oman in the Attic$ The -oman -riter and the
>ineteenth:Century .iterary 'ma!ination 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/86)
=oldstein, #aul, Co,yri!ht0s 9i!h?ay$ From =utenber! to the Celestial Dukebo; 5>e? Eork$ 9ill
and -an!, &88/6)
=randy, Richard ) and Richard -arner, eds, #hiloso,hical =rounds of Rationality$ 'ntentions,
Cate!ories, nds 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8(46)
=reenblatt, Ste,hen, Shakes,earean >e!otiations$ The Circulation of Social ner!y in
Renaissance n!land 5Berkeley and .os An!eles$ "niversity of California #ress, &8((6)
=reenblatt, Ste,hen, 0Resonance and -onder0, in #eter Collier and 9el!a =eyer:Ryan, eds,
.iterary Theory Today 5Cambrid!e$ #olity #ress, &88+6)
=rice, 9)#), 0'ntention and "ncertainty0, #roceedin!s of the British Academy, 3/ 5&8/&6, ,,) *41P
/8)
=rice, 9)#), 0.o!ic and Conversation0, in #) Cole and D) %or!an, eds, Synta; and Semantics 1$
S,eech Acts 5>e? Eork$ Academic #ress, &8/36, ,,) 2&P3()
=rice, 9)#), Studies in the -ay of -ords 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8(86)
9ackforth, R), The Authorshi, of the #latonic ,istles 5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity #ress,
&8&16)
9ackforth, R), #lato0s #haedrus, translated ?ith an introduction and commentary 5Cambrid!e$
Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &83*6)
9arari, DosuL M), ed), Te;tual Strate!ies$ #ers,ectives in #ost:Structuralist Criticism 5'thaca$
Cornell "niversity #ress, &8/86)
9artman, =eoffrey, Beyond Formalism$ .iterary ssays &83(P&8/+ 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity
#ress, &8/+6)
9artman, =eoffrey, The Fate of Readin! and <ther ssays 5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of
Chica!o #ress, &8/36)
9artman, =eoffrey, Criticism in the -ilderness$ The Study of .iterature Today 5>e? 9aven$ Eale
"niversity #ress, &8(+6)
9artman, =eoffrey, Savin! the Te;t$ .iteratureKDerridaK#hiloso,hy 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins
"niversity #ress, &8(&6)
9arvey, 'rene, Derrida and the conomy of DiffLrance 5Bloomin!ton$ 'ndiana "niversity #ress,
&8(46)
9arvey, 'rene, 0Doublin! the S,ace of ;istence$ ;em,larity in DerridaAthe Case of Rousseau0,
in Dohn Sallis, ed), Deconstruction and #hiloso,hy$ The Te;ts of Dac@ues Derrida 5Chica!o and
.ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6)
9avelock, ric A), #reface to #lato 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ Belkna, #ress of 9arvard "niversity
#ress, &8416)
9eide!!er, %artin, Bein! and Time, trans) D) %ac@uarrie and ) Robinson 5>e? Eork$ 9ar,er and
Ro?, &84*6)
9eide!!er, %artin, Bant and the #roblem of %eta,hysics, trans) D)S) Churchill 5Bloomin!ton$
'ndiana "niversity #ress, &84*6)
9eide!!er, %artin, arly =reek Thinkin!, ed) David Farrell Brell and Frank A) Ca,uFFi 5>e? Eork$
9ar,er and Ro?, &8/36)
9eide!!er, %artin, Basic -ritin!s, ed) David Farrell Brell 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul,
&8/(6)
9eim, %ichael, lectronic .an!ua!e$ A #hiloso,hical Study of -ord #rocessin! 5>e? 9aven$
Eale "niversity #ress, &8(/6)
9irsch, )D), Dr, Malidity in 'nter,retation 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &84/6)
9irsch, )D), Dr, The Aims of 'nter,retation 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/46)
9os,ers, Dohn, %eanin! and Truth in the Arts 5Cha,el 9ill$ "niversity of >orth Carolina #ress,
&8246)
9oy, David CouFens, Foucault$ A Critical Reader 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(46)
9usserl, dmund, Cartesian %editations$ An 'ntroduction to #henomenolo!y, trans) D) Cairns
59a!ue$ %artinus >ijhoff, &84+6)
9usserl, dmund, The 'dea of #henomenolo!y, trans) -illiam #) Alston and =eor!e >akhnikian
59a!ue$ %artinus >ijhoff, &8426)
'n!arden, Roman, The .iterary -ork of Art, trans) =eor!e =) =rabo?icF 5vanston$ >orth?estern
"niversity #ress, &8/16)
'ri!aray, .uce, S,eculum of the <ther -oman 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(36)
Dackson, .eonard, The #overty of Structuralism$ .iterature and Structuralist Theory 5.ondon$
.on!man, &88&6)
Dakobson, Roman, 0Closin! Statement$ .in!uistics and #oetics0, in Thomas A) Sebeok, ed), Style
in .an!ua!e 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ %'T #ress, &84+6)
Dameson, Fredric, The #rison:9ouse of .an!ua!e$ A Critical Account of Structuralism and
Russian Formalism 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &8/*6)
Dameson, Fredric, The #olitical "nconscious$ >arrative as a Socially Symbolic Act 5'thaca$
Cornell "niversity #ress, &8(&6, ,) *+)
Dardine, Alice A), =ynesis$ Confi!urations of -oman and %odernity 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity
#ress, &8(36)
Defferson, Ann and David Robey, %odern .iterary Theory$ A Com,arative 'ntroduction 5.ondon$
Batsford, &8(26)
Dohnson, Barbara, The Critical Difference 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8(+6)
Dosi,ovici, =abriel, 0The BalFac of %) Barthes and the BalFac of %) de =uermantes0, in .a?rence
.erner, ed), Reconstructin! .iterature 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(16, ,,) (&P&+3)
Doyce, %ichael, <f T?o %inds$ 9y,erte;t, #eda!o!y and #oetics 5Ann Arbor$ "niversity of
%ichi!an #ress, &8836)
Bamuf, #e!!y, Si!nature #ieces$ <n the 'nstitution of Authorshi, 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity
#ress, &8((6)
Bant, 'mmanuel, A Criti@ue of #ure Reason, trans) >orman Bem, Smith 5.ondon$ %acmillan,
&8116)
Bant, 'mmanuel, The Criti@ue of Dud!ement, trans) Dames Creed %eredith 5<;ford$ <;ford
"niversity #ress, &83*6)
Bant, 'mmanuel, Anthro,olo!y From a #ra!matic #oint of Mie?, trans) %ary D) =re!or 59a!ue$
%artinus >ijhoff, &8/26)
Bristeva, Dulia, 0The System and the S,eakin! Subject0, The Times .iterary Su,,lement, &*
<ctober &8/1, ,,) &,*28P3+)
Bristeva, Dulia, Desire in .an!ua!e$ A Semiotic A,,roach to .iterature and Art, ed) .) S) RoudieF
5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(+6)
Bristeva, Dulia, The Bristeva Reader, ed) Toril %oi 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(46)
BurF?eil, dith, The A!e of Structuralism$ .Lvi:Strauss to Foucault 5>e? Eork$ Columbia
"niversity #ress, &8(+6)
.acan, Dac@ues, Ucrits$ A Selection I&844J, trans) Alan Sheridan 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8//6)
.acan, Dac@ues, 0Seminar on OThe #urloined .etterO0, trans) Deffrey %ehlman, Eale French
Studies, no) 2( 5&8/*6, ,,) 1(P/*)
.acan, Dac@ues, The Four Fundamental Conce,ts of #sycho:analysis, trans) Alan Sheridan
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8//6)
.aferte, Darril, 09y,erte;t and 9y,ermedia$ To?ard a rhiForhetorical investi!ation of
communication0, Readerly:-riterly:Te;t, vol) 1, no) &, FallK-inter &883, ,,) 3&P4()
.ando?, =eor!e #), 9y,erte;t$ The Conver!ence of Contem,orary Critical Theory and
Technolo!y 5Baltimore and .ondon$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &88*6)
.ando?, =eor!e #), ed), 9y,erKTe;tKTheory 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8826)
.ando?, =eor!e #), Dulia .aunhardt and #aul D) Bahn, eds, The Dickens -eb, nvironment$
'ntermedia 1)3 5#rovidence, R)')$ 'nstitute for Research in 'nformation and Scholarshi,, &8((6)
.anham, R), The lectronic -ord$ Democracy, Technolo!y and the Arts 5Chica!o$ "niversity of
Chica!o #ress, &8826)
.avers, Annette, Roland Barthes$ Structuralism and After 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(*6)
.ecourt, Domini@ue, %ar;ism and ,istemolo!y$ Bachelard, Can!uilhem, Foucault, trans) Ben
Bre?ster 5.ondon$ >e? .eft Books, &8/36)
.ehman, David, Si!ns of the Times$ Deconstruction and the Fall of #aul de %an 5.ondon$ AndrL
Deutsch, &88&6)
.emert, Charles C) and =arth =illan, %ichel Foucault$ Social Theory and Trans!ression 5>e?
Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(*6)
.entricchia, Frank, After the >e? Criticism 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(+6)
.Lvi:Strauss, Claude, Tristes Tro,i@ues, trans) Dohn Russell 5.ondon$ 9utchinson, &8446)
.Lvi:Strauss, Claude, Structural Anthro,olo!y, trans) Claire Dacobson and Brooke =rundfest
Schoe,t 5.ondon$ Allen .ane, &84/6)
.Lvi:Strauss, Claude, The lementary Structures of Binshi,, trans) Dames 9arle Bell, Dohn
Richard von Stunner and Rodney >eedham 5Boston$ Beacon #ress, &8486)
.evinson, Ste,hen C), #ra!matics 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(16)
.le?elyn, Dohn, Derrida on the Threshold of Sense 5Basin!stoke$ %acmillan, &8(46)
.o?ry, Richard S), 0.ittery %an0$ %ark T?ain and %odern Authorshi, 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity
#ress, &8846)
.uther, Arch C), Authorin! 'nteractive %ultimedia 5Boston$ A# #rofessional, &8826)
.yotard, Dean:FranSois, The #ostmodern Condition 5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity #ress,
&8(36)
%acherey, #ierre, A Theory of .iterary #roduction, trans) =eoffrey -all 5.ondon$ Routled!e and
Be!an #aul, &8/(6)
%acksey, Richard and u!enio Donato, eds, The Structuralist Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of
Criticism and the Sciences of %an 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/*6)
%ajor:#oetFl, #amela, %ichel Foucault0s Archaeolo!y of -estern Culture$ To?ard a >e? Science
of 9istory 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(16)
%allarmL, StL,hane, 0Crisis in Merse0, in T)=) -est trans) and ed), Symbolism$ An Antholo!y
5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(+6, ,,) &P&*)
%an, #aul de, Blindness and 'nsi!ht$ ssays in the Rhetoric of Contem,orary Criticism I&8/&J,
second edition, revised and enlar!ed, ed) -lad =odFich 5.ondon$
%ethuen, &8(16)
%an, #aul de, Alle!ories of Readin!$ Fi!ural .an!ua!e in Rousseau, >ietFsche, Rilke and #roust
5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity #ress, &8/86
%an, #aul de, The Rhetoric of Romanticism 5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity #ress, &8(26)
%an, #aul de, The Resistance to Theory 5%innea,olis$ "niversity of %innesota #ress, &8(46)
%an, #aul de, -artime Dournalism &818P&821, ed) -erner 9amacher, >eil 9ertF and Thomas
Beenan 5.incoln, >ebraska$ "niversity of >ebraska #ress, &8((6)
%asten, Deffrey, Te;tual 'ntercourse$ Collaboration, Authorshi,, and Se;ualities in Renaissance
Drama 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &88/6)
%atejka, .adislav and Brystyna #omorska, eds, Readin!s in Russian #oetics$ Formalist and
Structuralist Mie?s 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ %'T #ress, &8/&6)
%c=ann, Derome D), The Beauty of 'nflections$ .iterary 'nvesti!ations in 9istorical %ethod and
Theory 5<;ford$ Clarendon #ress, &8((6)
%c=ann, Derome D), The Te;tual Condition 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &88&6)
%c.uhan, %arshall, The =utenber! =ala;y$ The %akin! of Ty,o!ra,hic %an 5Toronto$ "niversity
of Toronto #ress, &84*6)
%erleau:#onty, %aurice, The #henomenolo!y of #erce,tion, trans) Colin Smith 5.ondon$
Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &84*6)
%er@uior, D)S), Foucault 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8(36)
%ichalak, Susan and %ary Coney, 09y,erte;t and the author:reader dialo!ue0, 9y,erte;t 081
#roceedin!s 5>e? Eork$ AC%, &8816, ,,) &/2P(*)
%iller, D) 9illis, 0The .iterary Criticism of =eor!es #oulet0, %odern .an!ua!e >otes, /( 5&8416, ,,)
2/&P(()
%iller, D) 9illis, 0The =eneva School0, in Dohn B) Simon, ed), %odern French Criticism from #roust
to MalLry 5Chica!o$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8/*6)
%iller, D) 9illis, 0The Critic as 9ost0, in 9arold Bloom et al), eds, Deconstruction and Criticism 5>e?
Eork$ Seabury #ress, &8/86, ,,) *&/P31)
%iller, D) 9illis, 0The thics of 9y,erte;t0, Diacritics, vol) *3, no) 1 5Fall &8836, ,,) */P18)
%iller, >ancy B), Subject to Chan!e$ Readin! Feminist -ritin! 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress,
&8((6)
%innis, A)D), %edieval Theory of Authorshi,$ Scholastic .iterary Attitudes in the .ater %iddle
A!es 5.ondon$ Scolar #ress, &8(26)
%innis, A)D), ed), %edieval .iterary Theory and Criticism c) &&++Ac) &1/3 5<;ford$ Clarendon
#ress, &8((6)
%itchell, -)D)T), ed), A!ainst Theory$ .iterary Studies and the >e? #ra!matism 5Chica!o$
"niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(36)
%oi, Toril, Se;ualKTe;tual #olitics$ Feminist .iterary Theory 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(36)
%orse, David, 0Author:Reader:.an!ua!e$ Reflections on a Critical Closed Circuit0, in Frank
=loversmith, ed), The Theory of Readin! 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress, &8(26, ,,) 31P8*)
%oulthro,, Stuart, 0Travellin! in the breakdo?n lane$ a ,rinci,le of resistance for hy,erte;ts0,
%osaic, vol) *(, no) 2, December &883, ,,) 33P//)
>adel, 'ra Bruce, Bio!ra,hy$ Fiction, Fact and Form 5.ondon and Basin!stoke$ %acmillan, &8(26)
>a!el, Thomas, The Mie? from >o?here 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &8(46)
>esbit, %olly, 0-hat -as An Author70, Eale French Studies, /1 5&8(/6, ,,) **8P3/)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, The Doyful -isdom, trans) Thomas Common 5dinbur!h$ Foulis, &8&+6)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, The Birth of Tra!edy and the =enealo!y of %orals, trans) Francis =olffin!
5>e? Eork$ Doubleday, &8346)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, Thus S,ake Narathustra$ A Book for veryone and >o <ne, trans) R)D)
9ollin!dale 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &84&6)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, The -ill to #o?er, trans) -alter Baufmann and R)D) 9ollin!dale 5>e? Eork$
Minta!e Books, &84(6)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, Beyond =ood and vil$ #relude to a #hiloso,hy of the Future, trans) R)D)
9ollin!dale 59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/16)
>ietFsche, Friedrich, cce 9omo$ 9o? <ne Becomes -hat <ne 's, trans) R)D) 9ollin!dale
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8/86)
>itFsche, Dane Chance, The =enius Fi!ure in Anti@uity and the %iddle A!es 5>e? Eork$
Columbia "niversity #ress, &8/36)
>orris, Christo,her, Deconstruction$ Theory and #ractice 5.ondon and >e? Eork$ %ethuen,
&8(*6)
>orris, Christo,her, The Contest of Faculties$ #hiloso,hy and Theory After Deconstruction
5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(36)
>orris, Christo,her, Derrida 5.ondon$ Fontana, &8(/6)
>orris, Christo,her, #aul de %an$ Deconstruction and the Criti@ue of Aesthetic 'deolo!y 5.ondon$
Routled!e, &8((6)
>orris, Christo,her, S,inoFa and the <ri!ins of %odern Critical Theory 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell,
&88&6)
>orris, Christo,her, Reclaimin! Truth$ Contribution to a Criti@ue of Cultural Relativism 5.ondon$
.a?rence ` -ishart, &8846)
>unber!, =eoffrey, ed), The Future of the Book 5Berkeley$ "niversity of California #ress, &8846)
>ye, Andrea, Feminist Theory and the #hiloso,hies of %an 5>e? Eork$ Croom 9elm, &8((6)
<lney, Dames, ed), Autobio!ra,hy$ ssays Theoretical and Critical 5#rinceton$ #rinceton
"niversity #ress, &8(+6)
<lsen, Stein, The nd of .iterary Theory 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &8(/6)
<n!, -alter D), <rality and .iteracy$ The Technolo!isin! of the -ord 5.ondon and >e? Eork$
%ethuen, &8(*6)
<0Toole, .)%) and Ann Shukman, eds, Russian #oetics in Translation 2 5Colchester$ "niversity of
sse; #ress, &8//6)
#arry, %ilman, The %akin! of 9omeric Merse$ The Collected #a,ers of %ilman #arry, ed) Adam
#arry 5<;ford$ <;ford "niversity #ress, &8/&6)
#atterson, Annabel, 0'ntention0, in Frank .entricchia and Thomas %c.au!hlin, eds, Critical Terms
for .iterary Study 5Chica!o and .ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &88+6, ,,) &13P24)
#aulson, -illiam R), The >oise of Culture$ .iterary Te;ts in a -orld of 'nformation 5'thaca$
Cornell "niversity #ress, &8((6)
#lant, Sadie, Neros and <nes$ Di!ital -omen and the >e? Technoculture 5.ondon$ Fourth
state, &88/6)
#lato, The Collected Dialo!ues of #lato, 'ncludin! the .etters, ed) dith 9amilton and 9untin!ton
Cairns, Bollin!en Series .]]' 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &84&6)
#orter, Roy, ed), Re?ritin! the Self$ 9istories from the Renaissance to the #resent 5.ondon and
>e? Eork$ Routled!e, &88/6)
#oulet, =eor!es, .es %Ltamor,hoses du Cercle 5#aris$ #lon, &84&6)
#oulet, =eor!es, 0Criticism and the ;,erience of 'nteriority0, in Richard %acksey and u!enio
Donato, eds, The Structuralist Controversy$ The .an!ua!es of Criticism and the Sciences of %an
5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8/*6, ,,) 34P/*)
Ruaint, David, <ri!in and <ri!inality in Renaissance .iterature 5>e? 9aven$ Eale "niversity
#ress, &8(16)
Racevskis, Barlis, %ichel Foucault and the Subversion of 'ntellect 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity
#ress, &8(16)
Ra!landPSullivan, llie and %ark Bracher, eds, .acan and the Subject of .an!ua!e 5>e? Eork$
Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &88&6)
Ratjchman, Dohn, %ichel Foucault$ The Freedom of #hiloso,hy 5>e? Eork$ Columbia "niversity
#ress, &8(36)
Ray, -illiam, .iterary %eanin!$ From #henomenolo!y to Deconstruction 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell,
&8(26)
Riffaterre, %ichael, 0Sade or Te;t as Fantasy0, Diacritics, vol) *, no) 1 5&8/&6, ,,) *P8)
Robin, .Lon, #laton, <euvres Com,lQtes 'M) 1$ #hQdre, *nd edn 5#aris, &83+6)
Rorty, Richard, #hiloso,hy and the %irror of >ature 5<;ford$ Basil Black?ell, &8(+6)
Rorty, Richard, Conse@uences of #ra!matism$ ssays &8/*P&8(+ 5Bri!hton$ 9arvester #ress,
&8(*6)
Rorty, Richard, <bjectivity, Relativism and Truth 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &88&6)
Rose, %ark, Authors and <?ners 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8816)
Rousseau, Dean:Dac@ues, The Confessions of Dean:Dac@ues Rousseau, trans) D)%) Cohen,
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin Books, &8316)
Rousseau, Dean:Dac@ues, ssay on the <ri!in of .an!ua!es, ?hich Treats of %elody and
%usical 'mitation, trans) D)9) %oran and Ale;ander =ode 5>e? Eork$ Fredric "n!ar, &8446)
Rousseau, Dean:Dac@ues, The Social Contract and Discourses, trans) =)D)9) Cole 5.ondon$
Dent, &8/16)
Ro?e, C)D), #lato$ #haedrus, ?ith Translation and Commentary 5-arminster$ Aris and #hilli,s,
&8(46)
Ryan, Biernan, ed), >e? 9istoricism and Cultural %aterialism$ A Reader 5.ondon$ Arnold, &8846)
Said, d?ard, 0An thics of .an!ua!e0, Diacritics, vol) 2, no) * 5Summer &8/26, ,,) *(P1/)
Said, d?ard, Be!innin!s$ 'ntention and %ethod 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress,
&8/36)
Sallis, Dohn, ed), Deconstruction and #hiloso,hy$ The Te;ts of Dac@ues Derrida 5Chica!o and
.ondon$ "niversity of Chica!o #ress, &8(/6)
SalusinsFky, 'rme, ed), Criticism in Society$ 'ntervie?s ?ith Dac@ues Derrida, >orthro, Frye,
9arold Bloom, =eoffrey 9artman, Frank Bermode, d?ard Said, Barbara Dohnson, Frank
.entricchia and D) 9illis %iller 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(/6)
Sartre, Dean:#aul, ;istentialism and 9umanism, trans) #hili, %airet 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &82(6)
Sartre, Dean:#aul, -hat is .iterature7, trans) Bernard Frechtman 5.ondon$ %ethuen, &83+6)
Saussure, Ferdinand de, A Course in =eneral .in!uistics, trans) -) Baskin 5.ondon$ Fontana,
&8/26)
Searle, Dohn R), S,eech Acts$ An ssay in the #hiloso,hy of .an!ua!e 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e
"niversity #ress, &8486)
Searle, Dohn R), 0Reiteratin! the Differences$ A Re,ly to Derrida0, =ly,h, ' 5&8//6, ,,) &8(P*+()
Sell, Ro!er D), ed), .iterary #ra!matics 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &88&6)
Sheridan, Alan, %ichel Foucault$ The -ill to Truth 5.ondon$ Tavistock, &8(+6)
Sho?alter, laine, ed), The >e? Feminist Criticism$ ssays on -omen, .iterature and Theory
5>e? Eork$ #antheon #ress, &8(36)
Siebers, Tobin, The thics of Criticism 5'thaca$ Cornell "niversity #ress, &8((6)
Silverman, 9u!h D), 'nscri,tions$ Bet?een #henomenolo!y and Structuralism 5>e? Eork and
.ondon$ Rouded!e and Be!an #aul, &8(/6)
Simms, Barl, ed), .an!ua!e and the Subject 5Amsterdam$ Rodo,i #ress, &88/6)
Sim,son, David, 'rony and Authority in Romantic #oetry 5Toto?a, >D$ Ro?man and .ittlefeld,
&8/86)
Smith, Barbara 9errnstein, Contin!encies of Malue$ Alternative #ers,ectives for Critical Theory
5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ 9arvard "niversity #ress, &8((6)
Smith, >eil and Deirdre -ilson, %odern .in!uistics$ The Results of Chomsky0s Revolution
59armonds?orth$ #en!uin, &8/86)
So,er, Bate, 9umanism and Anti:9umanism 5.ondon$ 9utchinson, &8(46)
S,erber, Dan and Deirdre -ilson, Relevance$ Communication and Co!nition 5<;ford$ Basil
Black?ell, &8(46)
S,ivak, =ayatri Chakravorty, 0=las #iece$ A Com,te Rendu0, Diacritics, vol) /, no) 1 5&8//6, ,,)
**P28)
S,ivak, =ayatri Chakravorty, The #ost:Colonial Critic$ 'ntervie?s, Strate!ies, Dialo!ues, ed)
Sarah 9arasym 5>e? Eork and .ondon$ Routled!e, &88+6)
S,ivak, =ayatri Chakravorty, 0Can the Subaltern S,eak70, in Colonial Discourse and #ost:
Colonial Theory$ A Reader, ed) and introduced by #atrick -illiams and .aura Chrisman 59emel
9em,stead$ 9arvester, &8816, ,,) 44P&&&)
S,ivak, =ayatri Chakravorty, 0Readin! The Satanic Merses0, in %aurice Biriotti and >icola %iller,
eds, -hat is an Author7 5%anchester$ %anchester "niversity #ress, &8816, ,,) &+1P12)
S,rinkler, %ichael, 0Fictions of the Self) The nd of Autobio!ra,hy0, in Dames <lney, ed),
Autobio!ra,hy$ ssays Theoretical and Critical 5#rinceton$ #rinceton "niversity #ress, &8(+6, ,,)
1*&P2*)
Stillin!er, Dack, %ulti,le Authorshi, and the %yth of Solitary =enius 5>e? Eork and <;ford$
<;ford "niversity #ress, &88&6)
StroFier, Robert %), Saussure, Derrida and the %eta,hysics of Subjectivity 5Berlin$ %outon de
=ruyter, &8((6)
Sturrock, Dohn, ed), Structuralism and Since$ From .Lvi:Strauss to Derrida 5<;ford$ <;ford
"niversity #ress, &8/86)
Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self$ The %akin! of the %odern 'dentity 5Cambrid!e$ Cambrid!e
"niversity #ress, &8(86)
Thody, #hili,, Roland Barthes$ A Conservative stimate 5.ondon$ %acmillan, &8//6)
Todd, Dane %arie, Autobio!ra,hics$ Freud and Derrida 5>e? Eork$ =arland, &88+6)
Tomaschevsky, Boris, 0.iterature and Bio!ra,hy0, in .adislav %atejka and Brystyna #omorska,
eds, Readin!s in Russian #oetics$ Formalist and Structuralist Mie?s 5Cambrid!e, %ass)$ %'T
#ress, &8/&6, ,,) 2/P33)
TroubetFkoy, >ikolai, #rinci,les of #honolo!y, trans) Christiane A)%) Balta;e 5Berkeley and .os
An!eles$ "niversity of California #ress, &8486)
"lmer, =re!ory .), A,,lied =rammatolo!y$ #ost5e6:,eda!o!y from Dac@ues Derrida to Dose,h
Beuys 5Baltimore$ Dohns 9o,kins "niversity #ress, &8(36)
"n!ar, Ste,hen, Roland Barthes$ The #rofessor of Desire 5.incoln, >ebraska$ "niversity of
>ebraska #ress, &8(16)
MalLry, #aul, 0Remarks on #oetry0, in T)=) -est trans) and ed), Symbolism$ An Antholo!y
5.ondon$ %ethuen, &8(+6, ,,) 21P4+)
Meeser, Aram 9), ed), The >e? 9istoricism Reader 5.ondon and >e? Eork$ Routled!e, &8826)
-aite, =eoff, >ietFsche0s Cor,sKe$ Aesthetics, #olitics, #ro,hecy, or, The S,ectacular
Technoculture of veryday .ife 5Durham and .ondon$ Duke "niversity #ress, &8846)
-asserman, =eor!e R), Roland Barthes 5Boston$ T?ayne #ublishers, &8(&6)
-aters, .indsay and -lad =odFich, eds, Readin! de %an Readin! 5%innea,olis$ "niversity of
%innesota #ress, &8(86)
-au!h, #atricia, #ractisin! #ostmodernismKReadin! %odernism 5.ondon$ Arnold, &88*6)
-au!h, #atricia, ed), Revolutions of the -ord$ 'ntellectual Conte;ts for the Study of %odern
.iterature 5.ondon$ Arnold, &88/6)
-ilde, <scar, 0The Critic as Artist0, Com,lete -orks of <scar -ilde 5.ondon and =las!o?$
Collins, &82(6, ,,) &,++8P38)
-imsatt, -) B), Dr, The Merbal 'con$ Studies in the %eanin! of #oetry 5.e;in!ton$ "niversity of
Bentucky #ress, &8326)
-imsatt, -)B), 0=enesis$ A Fallacy Revisited0, in =re!ory T) #olletta, ed), 'ssues in Contem,orary
Criticism 5Boston$ .ittle, Bro?n, &8/16, ,,) *33P/4)
-iseman, %ary Bittner, The cstasies of Roland Barthes 5.ondon and >e? Eork$ Routled!e,
&8(86)
-itt!enstein, .ud?i!, Tractatus .o!ico:#hiloso,hicus, trans) D)F) #ears and B)F) %c=uinness
5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an #aul, &84*6)
-ood, David and Robert Bernasconi, eds, Derrida and DiffLrance 5-ar?ick$ #arousia #ress,
&8(36)
-oodman, Tony and Donathan #o?ell, eds, Author and Audience in .atin .iterature 5Cambrid!e$
Cambrid!e "niversity #ress, &88*6)
-oodmansee, %artha and #eter DasFi, eds, The Construction of Authorshi,$ Te;tual
A,,ro,riation and .a? in .iterature 5Durham, >C$ Duke "niversity #ress, &8826)
Eoun!, Robert, "ntyin! the Te;t$ A #ost:Structuralist Reader 5.ondon$ Routled!e and Be!an
#aul, &8(&6)