ABSTRACT

Following involvement in several academic collectively written articles, the authors question traditional notions of the ‘lone’ individualist author model as the expected standard in the humanities as opposed to large research teams in physical sciences. They use Barthes and Foucault to question the function and the concept of the author and assumed notions of subjectivity. Recent collective writing as a form of peer production and publishing is an attempt to reinvent the concepts of authorship, the author subject and author subjectivity. These bring to the fore the processes of peer review, questions of ownership (for example, of what remains in a revision, whose contribution becomes revised and by whom), and blurr the boundaries around author/collective voice and are discussed in this paper. Its transversality is proving as complex as the term suggests, in terms of developing new ways of connecting, thinking, examining and working, in ways that have not been the norm at least in the field of philosophy of education. Contemporary questions of the potential social, philosophical, legal, epistemological and ethical implications for and of authorship and subjectivity have barely been touched on to date, but this article begins to broach this gap.

摘要

在参与了几篇学术性集体撰写的文章之后，作者质疑“孤独”的个人主义作者模式的传统观念是人文科学的预期标准，而不是物理学中的大型研究团队。他们使用Barthes和Foucault来质疑作者的功能和概念以及假设的主观性。最近的集体写作是同伴创作和出版的一种形式，它是一种尝试重塑作者身份，作者主题和作者主体性的概念的尝试。这些提出了同行评审的过程，所有权问题（例如，修订中的内容，谁的贡献被修改以及由谁进行修改），以及模糊了作者/集体声音的界限，在本文中进行了讨论。在开发连接，思考，研究和工作的新方式方面，它的横向性被证明是该术语所暗示的那样复杂，至少在教育哲学领域还不是普遍的。迄今为止，关于作者和主观性的潜在的社会，哲学，法律，认识论和伦理学影响的当代问题几乎未曾涉及，但是本文开始填补这一空白。