Respnse to Foucault

In his essay “What is an Author?” Michele Foucault attempts to explain and determine the origin of the notion of an “author” which plays such a prominent role in our society. As an Economics major one point that captured my attention was the idea that the notion of the author was initially catalyzed by the concept of ownership over one’s work. The benefit provided by being associated with a written text incentivized many individuals to achieve the status of author. Works were no longer praised in solidarity simply as a standalone achievement, now the author received praise as well. As time progressed, many times the “ingenious” mind of the author would actually be placed on a higher pedestal than the work itself. This remains true today because often times a reader will more deeply associate with the general brilliance of a particular author rather than with any of the author’s specific works.

The “author function” as Foucault refers to the phenomena, does not only serve to award praise upon the author, but it serves a valuable purpose for the reader as well. For many readers’ quality and most importantly credibility is instantly established with simply the author’s name. Readers use authors as a guide to aid them in their decision making process when deciding what particular book to read. For example, if a reader decides to study about 20^th century philosophy, a book by Foucault may be the reader’s ultimate choice. This is not necessarily because the reader is aware of any specific work from Foucault, but because the reader is aware of Foucault as an author and so his credibility is instantly established. The work once again becomes secondary to the creator of the work, the author. Not only does the author function establish credibility in the mind of the reader, but it also provides the reader with an individual who possess the true and correct interpretation of a work. The truth behind any “hidden meanings” that the reader believes to be disguised within the text, has to lie within the author. This places the author in a position of knowledge and of certainty, and the reader desires to posses the knowledge which resides only within the author. As a result many modern day authors are questioned about their works and about the true significance of their books. Their responses are commonly viewed as the correct interpretation simply because they are the author while other interpretations are labeled as incorrect.

However, Foucault warns about equating the real writer with the author, by comparing an author with a fictitious speaker in a novel written in the first person. If indeed Foucault is correct and the real writer and the author are two separate selves, than the interpretation of the author cannot be assumed to be the truly correct interpretation. The perspective of the author similar to the perspective of a fictitious character cannot always be trusted, and thus his position as possessor of the authentic interpretation of the work is called into question. The majority of people do not make a distinction between the real writer and the author. As long as authors continue to be strongly tied to the works which they produce, they will continue have a prominent position in our society.