Is writing simply "performative"?

http://blog.escdotdot.com/2007/02/01/creative-journal%E2%80%94roland-barthes-and-pierre-bourdieu%E2%80%94the-death-of-the-author/

This blogger discusses some of Barthes' concepts from "The Death of the Author." One concept I find interesting is the idea that when a "scriptor" engages in the process of writing, he/she is not creating, but performing.

This makes me think about the act of improvising. I always thought of improvisation as taking what you know and creating something new from it. For example, a guitarist works off of scales to create unique solos, incorporating styles from familiar styles of music and favorite songs. Barthes would say that the guitar solo is not an expression of the guitarist, but rather a mixture of sources from the "immense dictionary" (R&W, 187) of the guitarist.

I understand that a new creation is hardly and rarely new. Everything is influenced by a plethora of sources (overdetermination). However, I don't really understand how producing something that has never been produced in the past is not creating something new. Guitarists create new solos all the time...they are obviously similar to what influenced them, but the specific arrangement of notes and the rhythm is a new combination. Poets are of course influenced by past works, but they create poems that have never been written before.

I think Barthes would argue that a new poem is a new combination, but not a new creation. And the poet merely put things into a novel combination, as opposed to creating something outside of influences. So going back to improvisation, I think Barthes would say that the end result may be something new, but the improvisor did not choose the way it came out.

Yet, as much as I agree with that, I still can't fully accept that there isn't some degree of creativity. After all, not just any new combination of words makes a good poem, just as not just any new combo of notes makes a good guitar solo. The artist still retains some control over the end product. What I am writing right now is largely influenced by many factors, but I (as in the overall system of all that makes up my physiology and psychology...as opposed to the "I" of the constructed self) am choosing how to use what is influencing me to create what is being written. So I think that writing is performance, yes, but there is also creativity involved.

The Unconscious and Consciousness

I like Lacan's idea that the unconscious is the nucleus of one's being. Most of what we are is unconscious: our desires, which are the reasons for what we say and think and do, come from our unconscious. So how can we say we know ourselves when we have no access to our nucleus, to that which causes the majority of what is conscious and the majority of our behavior? And further, how can we be held responsible for much of what we do if we are not consciously choosing to do it?

That most of what we think and do comes from unconscious sources is not surprising when you compare humans with animals -- humans, afterall, are not so different than animals (especially when there are a lot of people in one place at the same time). However, there is something quite important that separates humans from animals: language. It allows us to have complex societies, to have complex relationships, and it allows us to have consciousness in the sense that we can contemplate our current situation, and think about our thoughts, and plan for the future, etc. (This is so because we think with language; the more complex language we have, the more complex thoughts we can have.)

And with the consciousness that language allows for, we have some control over what we say and do, though it is indeed limited (again, we're still pretty similar to animals). Though, conscious effort can affect the unconscious. What I mean is that consciousness, as limited as it may be, can shape a person in a way they choose. For example, imagine Jerard has a bad habit of biting his nails and he wants to stop. He doesn't think when he does it; he sometimes realizes that he is biting his nails while already in the process (Jerard's habit is unconscious). However, with some effort, Jerard can consciously pay attention whenever he bites his nails, and make the conscious effort to refrain from biting (and perhaps using positive reinforcement when he successfully refrains, such as rewarding himself with a piece of candy).

With enough time and effort, Jerard can stop his nailbiting habit -- a habit which was unconscious. So he used his consciousness to affect and change his unconscious. It's important to note that the habit is probably not gone completely, meaning that Jerard may pick it up again in the future. Yet, it's gone for now and for at least a while. The more Jerard consciously avoids biting his nails the less likely the habit will return.

So even though most of a person is unconscious, there is the power to consciously change. In my opinion, the reason people don't change more often is because of laziness. It's so easy to keep doing what comes natural. And in many cases what's natural is the optimal way, but not in all cases, as with Jerard's nailbiting habit. Besides, conscious effort is work. It's much easier just to bite one's nails. But it doesn't have to be that way. Language gives us the power of consciousness, which gives us the power to change that which is unconsciously caused.