Authority in Writing, Essay Example

In their article, “Reading and Writing without Authority”, Penrose and Geisler defines the difference between authority and lack of authority in academic writing as follows: the latter “seems to operate with an awareness that texts and knowledge claims are authored and negotiable”, (507) whereas the former indicates a “more traditional information-transfer in which texts are definitive and unassailable.” (507) In other words, to write under the banner of authority means to accept published texts as somehow irrefutable facts, while to avoid authority is to understand that these texts are written by human beings, with their own motivations, methodologies and historical backgrounds, such that no text can be considered authoritative just because it is a text.

This is a key difference in starting-points in writing, which yields two different types of writing: in the authoritative case, we get a piece of writing that is in a certain sense merely a synopsis of given perspectives on a subject. This is almost an encyclopedic type of work or a literature review which summarizes the existing literature. Whereas this type of work certainly has its own value as a starting point in research, giving us, in its best form, an overview of perspectives, it is only this: a starting point in research, just like one would look in a dictionary to find the meaning of a word. The creative and critical use of the word is another matter entirely.

Hence, to write without authority in this case is to go beyond the initial existing literature and assert one’s view: one can be critical of the existing literature, rather than accepting it as dogma. This approach is the conscious or unconscious understanding that various texts are produced in their own socio-historical contexts with their own objectives: certainly, it is important to know what is being said in the literature on a given topic. But the crucial step to quality academic writing is to go beyond this initial step: this perhaps means to criticize the existing literature, showing blind spots in its existing methodology. In the best cases, it means formulating an original hypothesis against the backdrop of the existing literature. The crucial point that the authors make is thus that successful academic writing must have a critical as well as creative relationship to the academic literature in the given field.

Certainly, this is a difficult task for the young student. This is why Penrose and Geisler develop their study around the differences in how texts are approached by academics through a comparison between a doctoral student and a first year university student. The doctoral student has already learned the skill of how to relate to a text: but this relation is not itself formulaic. It is a dynamic, critical relationship, where creative hypotheses can potentially emerge. The first year university student, in contrast, it seems that the article wants to state, has a different perspective on learning: they want to satisfy the authorities, the existing “masters”, and therefore treat existing texts as manifestations of these same authorities. They do not have the skill or the perspective to understand how to challenge texts.

Such articles as Penrose and Geisler’s are thus important in introducing young students to what is at stake in academic writing. The article proved very interesting for me personally, as it helped re-enforce the idea about treating texts as authority figures or challenging them. I had an inkling of this idea: I understood that good academic writing has to ultimately present something new. It cannot merely be a recitation of existing research: that is what Wikipedia is for. But at the same time it is very difficult, as the authors of the article suggest, for a young student to feel confident doing this, as there is an enormous amount of existing literature on topics. This creates a feeling of intimidation in the student.

At the same time, is it fair to expect from every student to say something groundbreaking in terms of a hypothesis? This is a problem I have found with my own writing: am I saying something new and interesting? Has someone said before what I am trying to say? And does this mean that my position is now trivial, because it is not original?
These are important questions for young writers in academia. For this reason, I think that texts that summarize literature, such as literature reviews, also have an importance, even though they reflect authority figures. This is because they serve as a starting-point for subsequent investigation and stimulate ideas. We cannot expect too much of young students: for young students, writing literature reviews can be an enlightening exercise of familiarization. However, at the same time, texts such as that by Penrose and Geisler can introduce us to the next step: trying to engage creatively and critically with the existing literature. Perhaps at this stage, it is of the most importance to understand the process, rather than master it.

Works Cited

Penrose, Ann M. & Geisler, Cheryl. “Reading and Writing without Authority.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 45, No. 4, Dec. 1994. pp. 505-520