AtJTHORS~(1977) _

From several angles, within a social perspective, the figure of the author becomes problematic. To see individuation as a social process is to set limits to the isolation but also perhaps to the autonomy of the- individual author. To see form as formative has a similar effect. The familiar question in literary history, 'what did this author do to this form?' is often reversed, becoming 'what did this form do to this author?' Meanwhile, within these questions, there is the difficult general problem of the nature of the active 'subject'. The word 'author,' much more than 'writer' or 'poet' or 'dramatist' or 'novelist,' carries a specific sense of an answer to these questions. It is true that it is now most often used as a convenient general terrri, to cover writers 6fdifferent kinds. But in its root and in some of its surviving associations it carries a sense of decisive origination, rather than -simply, as in 'writer' or in more specific terms, a description of an activity. Its most general early uses included a regular reference to God or Christ, as the authors of man's condition, and its continuing association with 'authority' is significant. Its literary use, in medieval and Renaissance thought, was closely connected with a sense of 'authors' as 'authorities': the 'classical' writers and their texts. In the modem period there is an observable relation between the idea of an author and the idea of 'literary property': notably in the organization of authors to protect their work, by copyright and similar means, within a bourgeois market. Two tendencies in Marxist thought bear on these questions. There is the well-known emphasis on the changing social situation of the writer. In its most accessible form this points to such changes as that from patronage
* Extract from Marxism and Literature (1977), by Raymond Williams, pp. 192-198, Oxford University Press.

421
AUTHORS

to the~ookselling market: a significant, ,complicated, and continuing history. BUL!his~histo1j of changing conditions can be' seen'as a~second~Drder proble~: ~ow the 'author distributes his work. The more interesting indication takes lthe .active social relationships one or .more .stagesback, showing first the. effect of demand on what isviablY'produced; under patronage.or wit:hi.1:1.al particular mmket; and second the more internal. effects - the specific:piessures' and limits - within actual composition. Theeevidence of both kinds of effect is extensive, and can never reasonably be overlooked. But even ,where it is fully admitted, the idea of the author, in all but its most romantic forms, is essentially untouched: The author has 'his' work 'to dd, but he finds difficulties in 'getting it supported or sold, o.r he cannot do it eXactlyas he would have wished;'Jbecause of the~pressures ~nd limits of the social relationships on which; asa producer, he depends. This is,. in' the simplest sense, the political economy of writing: a necessary addition to any real history of literatli1:~but still nO' more than an addition. The second t~ridericytransforms the whol~ problem. It points to the fig}l1:eof th!= .. mdiVidual author, as tc; the 'related .figure of the individual ~ubject, as aCBaracteristic form ofbomgeofs thought. Nominis the author of himself, in the ab~olut.e sens~,whid.l' these ,pescriptions imply. As a physicalmqiVidual he ~is o'[cqurse. ::;pecific~ though" within' a d<1terinining is also Spef1fic,but 'within the genetic inh~ritance. As a s:Ocial individual social forms of his time and place. The cruciah:argwnent then turns on the nature of this specificity and these forms,' and on the relations between t:hem.~Inthe ca~e of the. writer. one' bLthese social'forms is central: his -w.:ritei ill English, is'to be' already' socially specified. But language~ T<5 :be a~ the arg1i!hentmoves .beyond, this: 'at one level to :in emphasis on socially inherited: forms, in-:the generic sense; at another'level to \i.n emphasis on socially.inherited and still.a<i:tivenotations and-conventions; at a ,final level to:an emphasis on a continuing process 'in which fibt only the~forins,:but the contents of consciousness are:sbcially produced. The ot&nary<figure of the author can be made compatible with the first two levels. This is the language, these are the forms, these are the notations and conventions, on whick he ,-fundamentally depends but- from which, still, he begins' to be an author. It -is only at the final level that what seems to be -the keep of the concept - his individuaLautonomy - is radiailly ar~cked or OVett'illL ~Ma:ny people react sharply when this point in the ~enf' 1" reached. ,,,,:' 'i c: Even its <theoretical expression is quickly con:necred ~:-h a~~"measures against authors, with authoritarian dirc::L~H::S ",,~i- .. ~ ~-;;; grn .J..iLu-.....c., l.-:::..e~:--~' censorship and sllppression, and this is not alW-aY5 of the hourgeois concept~of 'the author,' as of 'the lflci.iTIrh1--;; -_' is -,,,---.-. ~~:=

~i

422
THEORIES: A READER

which initsown ways, ahd especially in the.!):Ia!ket,.cancbe~ome ill.practice cruel and malign. Anyversion of individual autonomy which fails torecf)gnize~ or which radically displaces, the social conditions .inherent in cany practical individuality, but which ,has then, -at another level, to reintroduce these social conditions as the decisive. 'practicarhusiness' of the everydaY_oWorld, can lead at best to self-contradiction, at worst to hypocrisy or despair. It can becomecomplicit with a process which1:ejects, deforms; or actually destroys individuals in the very name of individualism. Yet the concept has, correspondingly, a certain strength; Within. its explicit limits it is well placed .to defend one sense of individual autonomy against certain forms of theisocial whichI,-have become themselves' deformed~--In the central tradition of Marxism the separated ~concepts of 'individual' 'and 'society' are radically unified, but reciprocally and ,indeed dialectically:.;-.:;;.-,

It is above a).!. necessary to,avoid. po~tulating 'society' once more as an, abstraction confrontingthejndividual. The,individual)s a social being. The manifestation,o{his .life - even wh~n it does nqt appear directly in the form of a social manifestaliton,<acc9mplishec:l)n "association :vith other ... ,Though m~ is a Unique men - is Thereforea m3.n!festatioriof~ociallifi individual- and-it ISjust his pa'r'ticularify'whith makes him an individual, a really individual social being',- he is equally the whole, the ideal whole, the subjective existence of societyas-thought and eXperienced.(Marx,Economic
andPhilosophicalManuscripts 0]1844, lOST"

;Yet in som~ yersions and applicatio!).s"ofthe'Marxist tradition, this reciprocal and dialectical relationship has been deformed. The 'social,' ,we might,say, has been deformed to the 'collective,\just as, in the bourgeois traditiDn,the 'individual' has been deformed to the 'private.' .Thereare real practical dangers in both, and any Marxist thinking has)to face the fact that a society,claiming its authority has made the theoretical deformation into an appalling practi~e, in just this area of the relation between writers and their society. Again, beyond this chilling area of practice, there is a more modem theoretical tenden<:y (the Marxist variant of structuralism) .in whi,ch the living and reciprocal relationships of the indiviclual and the social have been suppressed in the interest of an abstract, model of. determinateso.cial structures and their 'carPers.' Facing either the practice or this version .of the theory, it is not surp.r;i.singthat ma.ny people, run back headlong into bowgeois-individualist cQncepts,forms, and institutions;which they see as their only prQtection. It is. then necessary to Jook for more adequate and more precise theoretical positions. (11ore precise, since some elements even of Marx's

423
AUTHORS

definition, for example 'the ideal whole,'are unsatisfactory, and seem indeed to be residual from earlier, non-materialist, forms of thought.) It must be said, first, that recognition of all the levels of sociality - from the eXternal forms of the political economy of literature, through the inherited forms of genres, notations, and conventions, to the constitutive forms of the social production of 'consciousness - is inevitable. But it is at the level of the constitutive that precision is especially necessary. The most interesting contribution is Goldmann's analysis (1970, 94-120) of thee 'collective subject.' It is a'difficult term, and we must first define its distinction from the other uses of 'collective.' Goldmann was careful to distinguish it from Romantic ideas of-the 'absolute collective' (of which the Jungian 'collective uncon'scious'"is a modem example), in relation to which the individual is merely an 'epiphenomenon. He distinguished it also from what we call the 'relative collective' of Durkheim, where collective consciousness is situated 'outside, above, or alongside' individual consciousness. What'is actually being defined is not's? much a 'collective' as a 'trans-individual' subject, in two senses. '" .,There is the relatively simple case of cultural creation by two or more individuals who are in active relations with' each other, and whose work cannot be reduced to the mere Sunl of their separate individual contributions. This is so 'common in cultural history, in .5=ases where it is clear that something new happens in the very process of conscious" cooperation, that it does not seem to present any serious difficulties. But it is from just this realiz~tiop. of a relatively well-known experience that the second and more difficult sense ?f a collective subject is developed. This goes beyond <;:onsciousco-operation - collaboration - to effective social relations in which, even while individual projects are being pursue'd, what is being drawn' on is trans-individual, not only in the sense of shared (initial) forms and experiences, but in the specifically creative sense of new respclilses and formation. This is obviously more difficult to find, evidence for, but the practical qv.estion is whether the alternative hypothesis of ~ategorically separate or isolated authors is compatible with the quite evident creation, in particular places and at particular times, of specific new forms and structures of feeling. Of course ~hen these are identified th~y are still 'only' forms and structure.~. Individual works range from what seem perf~ctexamples of these forms and structures, through convincing ,or suggestive instap.ces, to significant and sometimes decisive variations. Any procedure which shortens this range is merely reductive: the 'collective' becomes absolute or external. But on the other hand it is often the case, when we consider the whole work of individual authors, and especially when we

424
TH E 0 R I E S: ARE A DER

=-

consider it as an activedevelopment.in time, that ,different elements of the range seem to apply more or less closely in different phases. It is then an open question whether the significant relation, at any onepoint, is with the 'trans-mdividual' fOmi or structure, or with the abstracted individual. Or, to put it another way, the 'development' of an author can be (subsequently) 'summarized as separate, to be related only when it is complete to other complete and separate-'developments.' Alternatively, this very process -of development can be grasped- as acomplex of active relations, within which the emergence of .-an individu?l project, and the teal history _of other contemporary projects -and of c the developing forms _and structures, are continuously and substantially interactive. This latter procedure is the most significant element- in modeTl! Maqist accounts of cultural creation, as distinct both from the better",known Marxist,version in which an auth0l: is the 'representative: of a dass or tendency or situation, to )'Thich he can tlien be substantially reduceci, ancLfrom h()urgeols cultural history in which, against a 'backgro_und' of shared facts, ideas, and influenees, every individual (or in its more common bourgeois form, every signijicant individual) creates his quite separate w9rk, to be subsequently compared with other separate lives and works. . ,_ The character of the problem can be clearly seen in one literary form~ the biography. It is a common experience when reading the biography of ~ selected individual, in a given time and place;' to ~ee not only Jlls illdividual development but a more general develophie~t _in which~ w!1Pll !he convelltions of the- form, other people and events~forin round him and in this crUcial sense are defined by him. This is a relatively satisfactory rea.:ding experience until we read other biographies of'the same tinle and place, .and realize the displacements of interest, perspective, and relationwhithwe must now be conscious of, but which, with thaf first biography, we -had ahnost unwittingly taken as natural. The momentary minor figUre IS now tlle very centre of interest; the key events appear'and disappear; the decisive relationships shift. We are not likely then willingly to go back to'some general account in which all these emphatic'identities are merged to an 'impersonal' class or group. But neither can we stay as we are, with a mere miscellaneity or even contradiction of identities. Slowly, and reaching beyond the very edges of the form, we can gain the real sense of living individuals in every kind of relationship and in certain significantly common situations, and we come to know that we cannot understand their whole lives simply by adding each life to the other. At thispoinf we begin to-see the relationsnot only the interpersonal but also the truly social - within which (but not necessarily subject to which) the distinguishable identities and phases of identity developed.

s=~"-i1
~,
~>

425
AUTHORS

TIlls procedure can be summarized as a reciprocal discovery of the truly social in the in&\t"idua~and the truly individual in the social. In the significant case of authorship it leads to dynamic senses of social formation, of individual development, and of cultural creation, which have to be seen as in radical relationship without any categorical or procedural assumption of priorities. Taken together, these senses allow a fully constitutive definition of authorship, and its specification is then an open question: that is to say, a set of specific historical questions, which will give different kinds of answer in different actual situations. This is my only difference, on this point, from Goldmann, who, following Lukacs's distinction of 'actual' and 'possible' consciousness, sees great writers as those who integrate a vision at the level of the possible ('complete') consciousness of a social formation, while most writers reproduce the contents of ('incomplete') actual consciousness. TIlls can be true, and such a theory has the advantage that integration can be relatively simply demonstrated at the level of form. But it need not always be true, for it includes a very classical presupposition. The real relations of the individual, the trans-individual, and the social may include radical tension and disturbance, even actual and irresolvable contradictions of a conscious kind, as often as they include integration. Abstracted notions of integral form must not be used to override this. Moreover we have necessarily to be concemedwith cultural creation as a whole, and not only with the significant cases of the homology of formation and (ideal) form. Indeed any procedure which categorically excludes the specificity of all individuals and the formative relevance of all real relations, by whatever formula of assigned significance, is in the end reductive. We do not have to look for special cases to prove a theory. The theory that matters, in the known and irreducible variations of history, is that realization of the socially constitutive which allows us to see specific authorship in its true range: from the genuinely reproductive (in which the formation is the author), through the wholly or partly articulative (in which the authors are the formation), to the no less important cases of the relatively distanced articulation or innovation (often related to residual or emergent or pre-emergent formations) in which creativity may be relatively separated, or indeed may occur at the farthest end of that living continuum between the fully formed class or group and the active individual project. In this at once social and historical perspective, the abstract figure of 'the author' is then returned to these varying and in princzple variable situations, relationships, and responses.