Block One

Plato: Ideal State and Mimesis (Short Note)

Plato wrote that the Ideal state is divided into three classes: the artisans, the military, and the
philosophers. The philosophers are in charge of ruling the state, the military with defending it, id the
artisans with sustaining it physically. The artisans and i.e military like poetry, but it is contrary to the
nature of philosophy, and is therefore bad for the state and poets should be either exiled or have their
energy re-channeled into more productive areas. Eventually, the state will mature to a level where
poetry is all right, but only as hymns of praise to the gods and in tribute to famous and virtuous men.

It is important to remember two things.

First of all, The Republic is in verse form, and is neither a hymn to the gods nor a tribute to a famous
man. Second, Plato is using the ideal state as a metaphor for the mind of the virtuous man, with the
three classes symbolizing the "Tripartite Soul."

In this model, the artisans stand for the appetites, the military stands for the spirit, and the philosopher-
kings stand for reason. According to Plato, reason exists so that we may transcend the baser needs of
the appetites and the spirit. Therefore, Plato did not actually advocate exiling poets, as he is usually
thought to have done. What he meant simply was that the truly enlightened person would not need or
want poetry, and furthermore that poetry can keep us from becoming such a person by feeding the
spirit and appetites while holding reason in check. In fact, Plato compared poets to mad men, and
seemed to believe their madness was contagious.

However, we can see the irony of the fact that Plato was not above using the power of poetry for his
own ends. Plato definitely believed that poetry had power, and that power made people want to imitate
what they saw in art. This sounds bad. Why? To answer that question, we need to look at Plato's
metaphysical beliefs.

According to Plato, the nature of the universe is imitation (or mimesis). Plato was an idealist. That is, he
believed that reality consists of various layers. The top layer is made up of ideas, and all the lower levels
imitate those ideas. Actually, according to Plato, the top layer is made up of one idea, The Good, and
that all things and ideas only existed insofar as they participated in The Good, which was the ultimate
reality. Therefore, the further one got from The Good, the further one was from reality, and . the deeper
into evil. (According to Plato, evil came from mistaking appearance for ' reality, or accident for essence.)

Art, then, is bad because it imitates the accidents of life, and is therefore one step further removed from
the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Art is dangerous because when human beings see or hear art,
they want to imitate it, and therefore are led further away from the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

In ancient Greece, the schools of Philosophy and Rhetoric were theoretical training grounds for the
young men of these city states.' Moreover for them, their interests were not specialised, they applied
their knowledge of philosophy and rhetoric to every kind of subject matter. Rhetoric was more widely
studied than literary theory or 'poiesis' as some would (like Richard Harland), prefer to call it. Moreover
it was the rhetoricians who studied rhythm, diction and figurative language, all with a view to create
educated young men well trained in the powers of oration. At this juncture, we need not go into a
detailed study of the sociopolitical life in those times, suffice it to say that young Greek men were
trained . under two main schools that of philosophy and rhetoric, the rhetoricians studied 'poiesis' or
what can now be termed literary theory or criticism.

For Plato (429-397 B.C.), 'poiesis' or what we call literary theory or even criticism was an imitation or,
'mimesis' Plato called 'poiesis' an imitation or 'mimesis' because he believed drama to be a reproduction
of something that is not really present, and is therefore a 'dramatisation of the reproduction' (Richard
Harland, p.6). What he means is that in a play or an epic, what happens is this - the poet recreates an
experience, the audience watch that re-created experience, they are in fact encouraged to live through
that experience . as if they are physically within the time and space of that experience. Not only this,
Plato, also goes on distinguish between 'mimesis' and 'digenesis'. "Mimesis' is the speech of a character
directly reproduced,' whereas 'digenesis' is 'a narration of doings and sayings where 'the poet speaks in
his own person and does not try to turn our attention in another direction by pretending that someone
else is speaking .' Plato was a firm believer of the true form. He believed in only the most real reality. He
obiected to dramatised dialogue on the grounds that such dramatisation encouraged people to live lives
other than their own. Something, parents tell children even today regarding the invasion of cable T.V.
Plato was merely warning people against the danger of aping roles blindly, he feared that the influence
of mimesis /imitation could be so great that it could take over the minds and lives of young
impressionable people completely and become of primary importance. Plato was not comfortable with
the idea of grief caused by scenes of suffering in the plays. He assumed that a temporary catharsis could
infect the audience so strongly that they could become emotionally uncontrollable. His basic argument
against mimesis was the fact that both drama and epic imitate the world of perceptual appearances. For
him, the only reality was that of . abstractions. The poet in his eyes, imitated an appearance of the
abstraction and a playlan epic was hence a derivative of the derivative., hence thrice removed from
reality. 'They are images, not realities.' (Plato, Republic, p.67, quoted by R. Harland p.9). While the
rhetoricians never questioned society on philosophy, Plato was the first serious thinker to question
society along theoretical lines, all this is clearly to be seen when one reads his Republic. Continuing from
Plato's thought processes and his theory, the Neo-Platonists of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.
interpreted Plato's reality of abstractions to be the Thoughts of God. These theorists seemed to imply
that the artists as a whole could perhaps bypass the world of sensory appearances and achieve direct
access to the true. Though they did not really contribute to 'poiesis' as such, their interpretations paved
the way for the claims of the poets as missionaries and the poet's words as missionary wordsltruth.
Plato's works include the Republic, Ion, Cratylus, the Dialogues of Plato and Phaedms among others.
Plato has dealt at large with the notion of the poet as divinely inspired in the Phaedrus, and has tafked
about the place of the poet in a good society in the Republic. In fact in Book I1 he discusses the
education of the good citizen, he also examines the nature of poetry and the value of imaginative
literature. Book X of the Republic discusses the nature of poetry at length. His most important
contribution to literary theory lies in the form of his objections to 'poiesis'. He presents this argument
brilliantly with reference to a painter. As we said earlier, Plato believed in true reality, in the ideal, in
abstractions. For him objects were nothing more than an imitation of the reality or the ideal, he felt that
an individual imitating an imitation would produce an imitative form that was thrice removed from the
ideal. Similarly, poetry for Plato did the same thing - it was inferior because it was the imitation of an
imitation.
Aristotle And Mimesis

Aristotle Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of Plato, and, although his theories differed in many
significant ways from Plato's, often overturning them in Oedipal reaction, they were also very
dependent on them. Metaphysically, he was also an idealist, although he believed that ideas were
implicit in things, rather than existing outside of things.

As for the ultimate reality, he believed that the empirical world resulted from "Thought thinking Itself."
Aristotle, like Plato, sees Art as imitative, but, unlike Plato, sees it as imitating essence, rather than
accidence. Therefore, Art is actually higher on the chain than the empirical world, and elevates rather
than lowers us.

Aristotle was to later examined the nature and differentiating qualities of 'poiesis' and to prove that
'poiesis' was true, serious and helpful, whereas Platb had maintained that it was false, trivial and
harmful, and that the poet should be kept out of his republic. 1.2.3 Aristotle's Main Ideas Aristotle (384-
322 B.C.) Aristotle differed from his master Plato, in that he was more interested in describing and
classifying things as they were. Though he followed Plato in defining poetry as 'mimesis' he did not
condemn it like Plato did. He regarded 'mimesis' as a natural healthy impulse. Aristotle differed from
Plato because, for the former, the world was dominated by the model of the biological organism. He
believed that each living being strove to realise the ideal, the true within himself/herself/itself. For
Aristotle, 'Art initiated Nature'. This would imply that the arts, like 'Nature' work towards the unfolding
of inherent potential. Aristotle did not consider 'mimesis' to be mere copying. Whereas Plato believed
poetry to be cut off from the universal, it being removed from the true, Aristotle devised a higher truth
for poetry - that of understanding the underlying generalities of the species.
Russian Formalism

Formalism: A Theory of Literature Focused on Form

Formalism is a literary theory that emerged in the early 20th century, mainly in Russia (known as
Russian Formalism) and later influenced New Criticism in the West. Its core belief is that a literary work
should be studied as a work of art in itself, separate from historical, social, or biographical contexts.

📘 Definition of the Theory:

Formalism is the approach to literature that emphasizes the formal elements of a text — such as
structure, language, style, imagery, rhythm, and narrative technique — rather than its content or
author’s biography.

It treats literature as a self-contained system and focuses on how the form produces meaning.

🔍 Key Ideas of Formalism:

1. Literariness

Russian Formalists like Viktor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson wanted to find what makes a text
“literary.” They called this quality literariness — the use of special devices like imagery, rhythm,
metaphor, and defamiliarization that set literature apart from ordinary language.

For example, poetry doesn’t just describe a rose — it might make the reader feel the rose anew by using
unusual images or sounds.

2. Defamiliarization (Ostranenie)

Introduced by Shklovsky, defamiliarization is the technique by which literature makes the familiar seem
strange. It slows down our perception so we can see the world differently.

Example: Instead of saying “The man died,” a writer might say, “The man lay motionless, his chest silent
as stone.” This makes us notice death in a more vivid, unfamiliar way.

3. Form Over Content

Formalists believed that the how of a literary work — its form — is more important than the what — its
subject or message. They didn’t care much about politics, psychology, or the author’s background.
Instead, they focused on:

 Sound patterns
 Narrative techniques
 Sentence structure
 Word choice
 Literary devices
4. Close Reading

This idea was developed further in New Criticism (a later American form of Formalism). It means paying
very close attention to the text itself, especially things like:

 Irony
 Paradox
 Symbolism
 Ambiguity
 Unity of structure

The idea is that a great poem or story is like a well-made machine — every part matters, and all
meaning comes from within the work.

🧠 In Simple Terms:

Formalism tells us: “Forget the author, forget history — just read the text.” What matters is the
language, the form, and the techniques that make a literary work artistic. The job of the critic is to
analyze how the text works.

✍️ Application in Literary Analysis:

A Formalist critic would:

 Analyze how the plot is arranged (e.g., flashbacks, repetition).

 Study sound patterns in poetry (like rhyme and alliteration).
 Focus on the use of symbols and metaphors within the story.
 Avoid discussing the author's life or political background.

Example: While analyzing a Shakespearean sonnet, a Formalist would focus on its iambic pentameter,
rhyme scheme, and the use of metaphor — not on Shakespeare’s biography or Elizabethan politics.

✅ Summary of Formalism

 Literature is a self-contained artistic object.

 Focus on form, not content or context.
 Key concepts include literariness, defamiliarization, and close reading.
 The meaning of a text comes from its structure and technique.
Northrop Frye and Myth Criticism (SN)

Northrop Frye (1912–1991), a Canadian literary critic and theorist, is most renowned for his seminal
work Anatomy of Criticism (1957). Frye is a pivotal figure in twentieth-century criticism, notable for
moving away from the New Critical approach of closely analyzing individual texts in isolation, and
instead proposing a broader, more universal system of literary analysis rooted in mythology and
archetype. His contribution is best understood in terms of myth criticism—a mode of criticism that
seeks to understand the underlying mythic structures in literature.

Critique of New Criticism

Frye came at a time when the dominant critical school was New Criticism, which focused on the self-
contained nature of the text, often ignoring historical and biographical contexts. Frye criticized the New
Critics for being overly focused on the "isolate romantic image" and for presenting criticism as a sort of
mystical or sacrosanct activity carried out only by specialists. He mockingly described their work as
“cryptic comment and ritual gesture,” implying that their style made criticism inaccessible and elitist.

In contrast, Frye sought to democratize criticism. He wanted to show that literature could be
understood through a scientific system that looked beyond individual texts to broader patterns and
structures that recur throughout the literary tradition.

Principles of Myth Criticism

Frye’s theory is rooted in the belief that all literature participates in a shared reservoir of archetypes
and mythic structures. These are not the creation of a single author’s originality but collective
expressions of the human imagination. Frye identifies four narrative "pre-generic categories" or mythoi
that underlie all literature:

1. Comedy
2. Romance
3. Tragedy
4. Irony/Satire

Each of these corresponds to a phase of the seasonal cycle—spring, summer, autumn, and winter
respectively—and represents a universal structure of human experience. For example:

 Comedy represents rebirth and renewal (spring).

 Tragedy involves decline and death (autumn).
 Irony and Satire reflect chaos and disillusionment (winter).
 Romance stands for idealism and fulfillment (summer).

This cycle, Frye argues, is not just literary but psychological and cultural—archetypes like the hero, the
quest, the scapegoat, and the garden recur across literary works and cultures.

Archetypes and Literary Universals

A central concept in Frye’s myth criticism is that literature is a repetition of archetypal patterns.
Writers, according to Frye, are not inventing entirely new stories but are reconfiguring existing mythic
structures. This view challenges the Romantic notion of the artist as a unique creator and instead views
the artist as a participant in a collective tradition.

Frye’s vision is thus one of a communal creativity. As Lentricchia notes, Frye believed that at the
deepest levels, the self is not an individual genius but a “medium” through which shared archetypes and
myths are transmitted. Literature, in Frye’s view, is shaped by a small number of enduring narrative
forms that form a coherent structure of knowledge.

Centripetal and Centrifugal Meaning

Frye also developed a conceptual framework involving centripetal and centrifugal approaches to
literature:

 Centripetal meaning focuses on the internal structure of the text—its symbols, metaphors, and
recurring patterns.
 Centrifugal meaning explores the social, historical, and philosophical contexts that radiate
outward from the text.

This dual focus allows Frye’s system to engage both with close textual analysis and with broader
thematic and mythic structures.

Impact and Legacy

Frye’s myth criticism was a turning point in literary theory, especially during the 1950s and 60s, when
the limitations of New Criticism were becoming apparent. His work laid the groundwork for later schools
of thought, including structuralism and archetypal criticism, and influenced writers and scholars such as
Harold Bloom.

Importantly, Frye’s systematic approach presented literary criticism as a coherent, teachable discipline.
Rather than isolated acts of interpretation, he saw criticism as part of an overarching structure—a
grammar of literature, so to speak.

While his work has been critiqued for being overly systematic or for underestimating the historical and
political dimensions of literature, Frye's vision of literature as a unified field of human expression
remains influential.

Conclusion

Northrop Frye revolutionized literary criticism by proposing that literature follows recurring mythic and
archetypal patterns that transcend individual creativity. His myth criticism offers a universal framework
for understanding texts as part of a broader cultural and psychological tradition. By shifting focus from
the isolated text to a collective literary system, Frye not only challenged the elitism of New Criticism but
also laid the foundation for later theoretical developments, making him one of the key architects of
twentieth-century literary thought.
Sir Philip Sidney (SN)

Sir Philip Sidney (1554–1586) is one of the earliest figures in English literary criticism and is most
famously remembered for his critical treatise An Apology for Poetry (also known as The Defence of
Poesy), written around 1580. His essay represents a spirited defense of poetry at a time when it was
under attack by Puritan moralists who believed poetry was frivolous and morally corrupting. Sidney's
work is notable not just for defending poetry but also for laying a foundation for literary criticism in
England, making him one of the earliest modern critics in the English tradition.

Historical and Intellectual Context

Sidney wrote during the English Renaissance, a time influenced by classical learning and humanism. His
Apology reflects this classical orientation as he draws upon the authority of ancient critics and poets
such as Plato, Aristotle, and Horace. While Plato had famously criticized poetry for being removed from
truth and corrupting to the soul, Sidney turns Plato on his head, arguing instead that poetry teaches
virtue by engaging the imagination and stirring moral emotion. He also leans heavily on Aristotle’s
Poetics to outline a rational, structured view of literature.

Sidney’s engagement with these classical thinkers shows that early English criticism was rooted in the
European Renaissance recovery of Greco-Roman intellectual traditions. Yet, he goes beyond mere
imitation of classical views by combining moral philosophy with an appreciation of artistic creativity.

Defense of Poetry and Its Moral Role

Sidney asserts that the poet is a “maker”—a creator who shapes a golden world better than the real
one. He claims that poetry is superior to philosophy and history because it combines the general truths
of philosophy with the particular examples of history, thereby teaching through delight. His famous
triadic comparison ranks poetry above both:

 Philosophy teaches moral principles but does so in abstract terms, which ordinary people may
find dry or difficult.
 History offers concrete examples but remains tied to what actually happened and cannot show
what ought to happen.
 Poetry, according to Sidney, blends the best of both: it presents idealized actions and characters
in a way that can inspire readers to virtue.

He describes the poet as someone who not only shows what is but also what should be. This moral
optimism is a hallmark of Sidney’s humanist outlook.

Opposition to Contemporary Criticism

Sidney wrote in response to figures like Stephen Gosson, who had attacked poetry for promoting vice.
Gosson had written The Schoole of Abuse, in which he criticized poets, playwrights, and musicians for
corrupting public morality. Although Gosson oddly dedicated the book to Sidney himself, Sidney
responded by robustly defending poetry as an instrument of moral education.
He turns Gosson’s argument around, suggesting that abuse lies not in the art itself but in its misuse. Just
as the misuse of something like wine or philosophy does not invalidate its essential worth, poetry should
not be condemned because some use it irresponsibly.

Imagination and Delight

Sidney emphasizes the power of poetry to move people more effectively than mere logic. He believed
that poetry delights the soul and, through that delight, opens the path to learning and virtue. The
capacity of poetry to move the reader emotionally is not a defect, he insists, but its greatest strength.

This idea foreshadows many themes that would later be developed in Romantic criticism. As noted in
Block-3, Romantic critics like Wordsworth and Coleridge placed great emphasis on the role of
imagination and emotional experience in art, continuing the legacy Sidney helped to initiate by
validating subjective emotional responses in the appreciation of poetry.

Legacy and Critical Contribution

Sidney’s Apology has had a lasting impact on the tradition of English literary criticism. It stands as a
bridge between classical theories of literature and modern notions of artistic creativity. In literary
history, Sidney represents a turning point where literature begins to be seen not just as entertainment
or rhetorical exercise but as a serious, morally significant art form.

In Block-1, Sidney is grouped with other “defenders of poetry” like P.B. Shelley. His work is treated as
part of the “enduring criticism” that contributed to the formation of literary theory long before the
advent of structuralism and post-structuralism. In Block-3, while the focus shifts to Romanticism, the
seeds of Romantic ideas—such as the importance of imagination, the inner self, and the moral force of
art—are already visible in Sidney’s writing.

Conclusion

Sir Philip Sidney was not only a soldier and courtier but also a pioneering literary critic whose Defence of
Poesy provided one of the first systematic justifications of literature in English. He argued for poetry's
moral, educational, and imaginative value in ways that would influence centuries of thought, from
Neoclassicism to Romanticism and beyond. Sidney’s humanist optimism, belief in poetry’s power to
inspire virtue, and insistence on the creative capacity of the poet remain central to the history of literary
criticism
Mikhail Bakhtin (SN)

Mikhail (pronounced mikahil) Bakhtin was a Russian genre critic whose theories were not just influential
but also directly related to literature. His genre, of course, was the novel and he looked at the novel in,
well, novel ways. Bakhtin was concerned with language or discourse as a social activity.

The Bakhtin School comprising Bakhtin, Pave1 Medvedev and Valentin Voloshinov believed 'words' to be
active, dynamic, that had several connotations and would mean something different to a different
person or social hierarchy or whose meaning would differ according to time and place.

Earlier linguists patronized the view that - language was 'isolated . . . divorced from its verbal and actual
context'. The Bakhtin School used the Russian word 'slovo' which can and is translated into English as
'word', but the Russian connotation extends a social flavour that would more readily imply utterance 'or
even' discourse'.

Bakhtin looked upon language as an instrument and an area of class struggle. Hitherto revolutions (for
example the French Revolution of 1789), could not be visualized without bloodshed. With Bakhtin came
a new theory, verbal signal or words as instruments of revolution. Where does this become apparent? It
becomes apparent when various class interests come into conflict with each other on language grounds.

Bakhtin considered the novel to be such a dynamic genre that would eventually take over, many other
genres. For instance, Epic, which was characterized (according to Bakhtin) by an uncross able gulf
separating the characters and events from the audience was eventually subsumed by the novel, in such
a way that a separation ' would be unthinkable. Such an understanding would explain ancient writers
like Euripides (480-406BC), who wrote about Epic characters in a novelized manner. It could also be used
to explain newer genres, such as Magic Realism, which seems to demonstrate a blending of the novel
with the fairy tale. Accordingly, while we might object to Bakhtin's theories by pointing out poets such
as Walt Whitman who are very clearly using heteroglossia, Bakhtin would answer that Songs of Myself is
simply a novelized poem, or even a novel in verse form.
Jacques Derrida: The Father of Deconstruction

Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was a French philosopher best known for developing the concept
of deconstruction, a radical way of reading texts that questions the stability of meaning. He
challenged the idea that language can ever convey a clear, fixed, or final truth.

📘 Definition of His Theory:

Derrida’s theory of deconstruction argues that meaning in language is never stable or

complete because words always refer to other words — not to solid realities. As a result,
every text contains contradictions and gaps that undermine its own claims.

🔍Key Concepts in Derrida’s Theory:

1. Deconstruction

Deconstruction is not about destroying a text but taking it apart to show how it contradicts
itself. Derrida showed that texts often try to present a clear message or structure — but within
them are tensions, ambiguities, and slippages that unravel that structure.

For example: A text might preach peace while using violent language — this contradiction is
what deconstruction exposes.

2. Binary Oppositions

Western thought often relies on binary oppositions:

 good / evil
 light / dark
 man / woman
 reason / emotion
 speech / writing

Derrida argued that these binaries are not neutral — one term is always privileged over the
other (e.g., speech is seen as superior to writing). Deconstruction questions these hierarchies and
reverses or blurs them.

3. Différance (a French pun)

Derrida coined the word différance, which sounds like difference but is spelled with an “a.” It
refers to two things:

 Difference: meaning is created by how a word differs from others.

 Deferral: meaning is never fully present; it is always postponed.
A word only makes sense because it’s not another word — but its meaning keeps changing
depending on context, history, and interpretation.

4. There Is Nothing Outside the Text

This famous (and often misunderstood) quote means that everything we know is shaped by
language. Even our ideas of reality or truth come to us through language — and language is
never neutral or pure.

So, meaning is constructed, not discovered.

🧠 In Simple Terms:

Derrida said: “Don’t trust a text to mean what it says.” Look closer, and you’ll find that texts
often undo themselves. The meanings we think are stable — like truth, justice, identity — are
built on shaky foundations.

Language cannot fully express reality, because it is based on signs that endlessly refer to other
signs.

✍️ Application in Literary Analysis:

A deconstructive critic might:

 Look for contradictions or blind spots in a text.

 Analyze how binary oppositions are used and challenged.
 Show how the text undermines its own claims.
 Avoid reading the text as having a single message or moral.

Example: In a feminist deconstruction of a fairy tale like Cinderella, one might show how the
story relies on binaries like good/bad women or beauty/ugliness — and how these categories fall
apart under closer inspection.

✅ Summary of Jacques Derrida’s Theory

 Deconstruction reveals the instability of meaning in texts.

 Binary oppositions are questioned and subverted.
 Différance explains why meaning is always deferred and shifting.
 There is no pure or final truth — only interpretations shaped by language.
Michel Foucault: Power, Knowledge, and Discourse

Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was a French philosopher and historian who explored how power
operates through knowledge and language. His work shifted the focus of criticism from what
texts say to how they produce truths through systems of control and classification.

He is best known for studying the relationship between knowledge, power, institutions, and
the individual — especially in areas like medicine, prisons, sexuality, and literature.

📘 Definition of His Theory:

Foucault’s theory argues that knowledge is not neutral or objective — it is shaped by

power. Language and institutions work together to produce what we call “truth,” and
literature plays a role in this ongoing system of meaning and control.

🔍 Key Concepts in Foucault’s Theory:

1. Power/Knowledge

Foucault introduced the idea that power and knowledge are inseparable. Whoever controls
knowledge — like doctors, teachers, or religious leaders — also controls how people think and
behave.

Power doesn’t just repress us; it produces reality — it defines what is normal, acceptable, true,
or deviant.

For example: Psychiatry doesn’t just describe mental illness; it creates the category of
“madness.”

2. Discourse

A discourse is a structured way of talking about or understanding something — like madness,

sexuality, or crime. Discourse is more than language — it shapes how we think, behave, and
see the world.

Example: The medical discourse treats the body as a machine; religious discourse may see it as
sinful or sacred. Each offers different truths, based on power.

Literature is also shaped by — and can challenge — dominant discourses.

3. The Panopticon

In his book Discipline and Punish, Foucault used the Panopticon (a prison design by Bentham)
as a metaphor for modern systems of surveillance and control.
In the Panopticon, prisoners are watched but don’t know when — so they control themselves.
This is how modern power works: not through violence, but through constant observation and
self-discipline.

Foucault showed how schools, hospitals, and even literature train us to behave in “normal” ways
— without direct force.

4. Author Function

In his essay “What Is an Author?”, Foucault challenged the traditional idea of the author as the
source of meaning.

He argued that the "author" is a cultural construct that limits the meaning of a text. Instead of
seeing the author as the origin of truth, we should study how texts function in society.

This ties in with poststructuralist thinking (like Barthes), which shifts focus from the creator to
the social context and system of language.

🧠 In Simple Terms:

Foucault says: Truth is not discovered — it is created by systems of power. What we consider
“normal” or “true” is shaped by institutions, discourses, and history. Literature both reflects and
resists these systems.

✍️ Application in Literary and Cultural Criticism:

A Foucauldian critic might:

 Study how a novel constructs ideas of madness, gender, or sexuality.

 Examine how texts reflect institutional control (like in dystopias or prison narratives).
 Analyze how a text participates in or resists dominant discourses.
 Ask who benefits from the truths presented in the text.

Example: In The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the medical discourse about
“hysteria” silences the woman — but her secret journal resists it. A Foucauldian reading would
show how power operates through language and diagnosis.

✅ Summary of Michel Foucault’s Theory

 Power and knowledge are linked: power creates what we call “truth.”
 Discourse organizes and controls meaning in society.
 Surveillance and self-discipline are modern tools of control (Panopticon).
 The author is not the origin of meaning, but a function in a discourse.