"The Binaries of Authorship"

Rebecca Moore Howard’s chapter “The Binaries of Authorship” argues that the terms “writer,” “author,” and “student,” are, at the same time, both very similar and very different in meaning. Howard goes on to define authors as having four qualities – originality, autonomy, morality, and proprietorship (1). Howard goes on to say that merely writing does not create an author without these qualities. She also points out that a student does not practice originality because they are given assignments and they are assessed by how well they meet the standards of the assignments. After this she brings in Foucault and his concept of the author-function. With this idea she mentions that western cultural has arranged these terms hierarchically, with author on the top and student on the bottom, or “least respected.” At the end of the chapter, Howard suggests that both composition teachers and students would benefit from understanding the concept of authorship.

            I have to disagree with the idea that the author needs to be autonomous. After last week’s discussion, it is clear that writing collaboratively does not make the writers lesser authors. Howard mentions that composition teachers “worry” letting students write collaboratively. No explanation is given as to why this is. Is it because teachers believe they are more likely to plagiarize? Do they believe there would not be a balance of the work load between collaborators? Is the idea of writing collaboratively too “original”? Do they believe the quality of work would be subpar? These are the reasons I thought of, but I do not find them valid, since all of these issues are possible with autonomous writing. Additionally, the chapter mentions the practice of teachers “borrowing” former students’ work, removing the name and making it available as an example for their current students. When I have seen this practice in place, the teacher makes it clear that it is student work. Since the teacher removes the name from the writing sample and they make it clear that it is a student’s writing, is the instructor really taking ownership of the piece of writing? They are certainly in physical possession of the writing, but they push the authorship to an anonymous student. Furthermore, when students look at a sample writing provided by the teacher, they assume that it is the standard they are expected to meet, but what if it isn’t the standards the instructor is looking for? What if it is just an example to show what the assignment looks like?

            I think about this chapter and then about my teaching. My students are learning to do things that conflict with what they will do beyond school. Writing collaboratively is seldom used and some teachers find it to be a bad idea, despite the fact that writing collaboratively will most likely be a part of their future careers. I also found it interesting that the chapter described teachers as assuming their students plagiarize and that it is their job to fix this problem. When I read student papers, I am not assuming they stole the writing, if it sounds unlike them, I check to see if it came from somewhere else. But going in with the mindset that students are plagiarizing doesn’t show trust in your students.

Questions:

Howard identifies four qualities that an author has originality, autonomy, morality, and proprietorship. What are other qualities that are missing here? Any you would alter or omit?

Would teaching our students theories on authorship be helpful or hurtful to their education? Why?