Unweaving "The Death of the Author": Barthes, Saussure, and the Life of the Code
Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.
(Lamia, Part II, ll. 229–238)
Something similar, though in a very different sense, occurs in Barthes's "The Death of the Author." The essay does not destroy authorship; it examines the hidden structures that make authorship appear to be the natural origin of meaning.
Yet this text invites a second act of unweaving. If Barthes unweaves the author, we can also unweave the formula itself. What appears at first as a dramatic declaration is revealed as the consequence of a much more precise argument about the production of meaning.
To understand the death of the author, one must first understand the life of the code.
The Myth of a Famous Phrase
Roland Barthes's declaration of "the death of the author" has acquired an almost mythical status within literary theory. The formula has circulated far beyond the context in which it first appeared and is often invoked as shorthand for a variety of positions: a rebellion against traditional criticism, a celebration of interpretive freedom, or even the claim that texts mean whatever readers want them to mean.
As the phrase travels, it takes on a life of its own, detached from the theoretical framework that originally gave it force. The author appears to have been dramatically eliminated and replaced by an unlimited reader who can freely impose meanings upon a text.
Yet this interpretation obscures the structuralist argument beneath the slogan. Barthes's claim is neither mystical nor anarchic. It does not suggest that interpretation is arbitrary. Rather, it begins with a more fundamental question: where does meaning come from?
If meaning does not originate in the consciousness of an individual writer, what makes signification possible in the first place?
To answer this question, it is necessary to return not first to literary criticism but to linguistics, and more specifically to Ferdinand de Saussure. The famous death of the author emerges from a prior theoretical displacement: the death of the sovereign speaker.
Saussure's First Death: The Sovereign Speaker
Saussure's linguistics begins by challenging a deeply rooted assumption. Common sense suggests that people create meaning when they speak. Words seem to express thoughts that already exist within the minds of those who use them. From this perspective, language appears to be an instrument through which individuals communicate meanings they already possess.
Saussure reverses this direction of explanation. A speaker can communicate only because a linguistic system already exists. The value of a sign does not arise from the intentions of the person who utters it but from its position within a network of differences shared by a community. Language is inherited before it is employed. Every act of speech presupposes a structure that precedes the individual who speaks.
This insight is captured in Saussure's distinction between langue and parole. Parole refers to particular acts of speaking; langue designates the underlying system that makes those acts intelligible. Individual utterances vary endlessly, but their intelligibility depends upon conventions that no speaker creates. One may use the system, modify it, or contribute to its historical transformation, but one cannot stand outside it and create it anew.
The implications are profound. If the value of a word depends upon relations within a linguistic structure, then the speaker cannot be regarded as the ultimate source of meaning. The individual remains necessary for communication, but the explanatory centre has shifted elsewhere. Meaning is not founded in personal intention but in the relational system that makes expression possible.
The structuralist question therefore becomes: what conditions make signification possible?
Attention moves away from origins and toward structures. Instead of asking what an individual intends to express, structuralism asks what system allows expression to occur at all.
In this sense, the first casualty of structural linguistics is the sovereign speaker. Saussure does not eliminate the speaking subject, but he deprives that subject of authorship over meaning. The speaker no longer stands at the beginning of signification, language was already there.
Unweaving the Author
Barthes extends Saussure's gesture from language to literature. If speakers do not create the meanings of words they use, why should authors be considered the origin of the meanings of texts they write?
The author, like the speaker, operates within a system that precedes him. A writer does not invent language, genres, narrative structures, symbolic associations, or cultural references from nothing. Every literary work is produced through codes inherited from previous discourses.
Meaning therefore cannot be explained by returning to the author's private consciousness. The author may have intentions, memories, experiences, and purposes, but these are themselves expressed through structures that are historically and culturally available. The writer does not stand outside the system that gives writing meaning.
This is the central structuralist insight behind Barthes's famous phrase. "The death of the author" does not mean that writers cease to exist. It means that the author cannot occupy the position of absolute origin. The author is displaced, not erased.
Just as Saussure shifted attention from the speaker to the linguistic system, Barthes shifts attention from the writer to the literary and cultural codes through which writing becomes meaningful. The question changes from:
"What did the author intend?"
to:
"What system makes this meaning possible?"
The analogy can be stated simply:
The author stands to literary meaning much as the speaker stands to linguistic meaning.
Neither creates the system that allows signification to occur.
The death of the author is therefore less a dramatic execution than a methodological relocation. What disappears is not the writer but the belief that meaning begins with an individual consciousness.
Barthes does not execute the author, he disassembles a myth.
The Reader Is Not King Either
A common misunderstanding of Barthes's argument is that once the author loses authority, the reader takes his place. If meaning no longer belongs to the writer, then perhaps it belongs entirely to whoever interprets the text.
But S/Z suggests something more complex.
Barthes writes:
"The 'I' that approaches the text is itself already a plurality of other texts, of codes which are infinite or, more precisely, lost."
The reader does not approach a work as a pure, autonomous consciousness. Reading is possible because cultural conventions, linguistic habits, narrative expectations, and previous texts are already present. The reader brings codes to the text, but those codes were not created by the reader.
Yet the same observation applies to the writer.
There is no reason to say that the reader is constituted by previous discourses while imagining the author as an independent origin. The person who writes is also a plurality of other texts. Writers work through inherited forms, conventions, and possibilities of expression that existed before them.
The writer and reader therefore occupy parallel positions.
The writer mobilizes codes, the reader activates codes, but neither creates them.
This is why the death of the author should not be understood as a transfer of power from one sovereign figure to another. Barthes does not replace authorial authority with readerly authority. He challenges the very idea that meaning requires a sovereign centre. The reader is not king either. The death of the author is not the birth of a new sovereign, it is the displacement of sovereignty itself.
Conclusion: The Life of the Code
The enduring fascination of "The Death of the Author" comes partly from the dramatic force of its title. It sounds like a declaration, an act of destruction, a symbolic break with the past.
Placed back within its structuralist context, however, the phrase appears differently. What looks like an act of elimination is actually an act of analysis. Barthes does not remove the author; he examines the conditions that make authorship possible.
In this sense, structuralism performs its own kind of unweaving. Like Keats's philosopher who reveals the hidden texture of the rainbow, structuralism exposes the invisible structures beneath what appears natural and self-evident. It unweaves the author by revealing the codes that make writing, reading, and interpretation possible.
The author remains, what disappears is the aura of originary authority. The reader remains too, what disappears is the fantasy of unlimited interpretive sovereignty.
What emerges is the code: the network of linguistic, literary, and cultural relations that precedes both.
Seen from this perspective, "the death of the author" is less a proclamation than a diagnosis. What dies is not the writer but the belief that meaning originates in an individual consciousness. The real protagonist of structuralism is neither author nor reader but the network of codes that makes both writing and reading possible.
References
Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text (S. Heath, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original works published 1968–1971)
Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z (R. Miller, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1970)
Culler, J. (1983). Barthes: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Keats, J. (1820). Lamia. In Lamia, Isabella, The eve of St. Agnes, and other poems. Taylor and Hessey.
Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)
Comments
Post a Comment