The Broader Author

I don't think we talked much about Foucault's attempt to expand his definition of the author beyond novels in class. So here's my interpretation.

Towards the end of Foucault's essay  he makes an effort to broaden his definition of the Author. He explains that an author can be more than an author of books; he says that "one can be an author of a theory, tradition, or discipline in which other books and authors will find a place" (910).   He goes on to explain that there exists a class of authors which he calls "founders of discursivity" (911). What he means by the this is that these authors created something that is capable of being discursive, that is, there are numerous things to be learned via logical argument from the author's original work. When I picture discursivity I picture lines of thought coming from the original subject which all seek the logical, yet unobtainable, end of that subject.

Foucault uses Marx and Freud as examples. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto which can be, and has been, discussed since its inception. Freud wrote on the topic of psychoanalysis which has been developed and iterated since then. Marx and Freud are rare and unique in this respect. Foucault compares them to Ann Radcliffe, the creator of the Gothic novel. He explains that Radcliffe is not a "founder of discursivity" because the Gothic novel is limited in its possible discourse. There isn't much of a logical progression to the discourse of the Gothic novel; it is only imitated in its themes.

He also compares Marx and Freud to influential scientists like Galileo. Foucault explains that Galileo would not be considered a "founder of discursivity" because he did not invent cosmology as Freud invented psychoanalysis and Marx invented Marxism. Rather, cosmology itself would be the subject of discourse and Galileo would only be engaging in that discourse. Future developments in cosmology would change the validity of Galileo's original work on cosmology. God would be considered the "founder of discursivity" in respect to cosmology, not Galileo. This is not so with Freud since every development made after his original work on psychoanalysis must refer back to his work and be compatible with his work. "Re-examination of Galileo's text may well change our knowledge of the history of mechanics, but it will never be able to change mechanics itself.  On the other hand, re-examining Freud's texts modifies psychoanalysis itself" (912).