Post-Structuralist Critiques of Authorship in Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literature

Philip Abayomi Olorunfemi

doi:10.69725/aei.v1i4.352

Authors

Philip Abayomi Olorunfemi Landmark College Lagos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69725/aei.v1i4.352

Keywords:

Generative AI, Authorship, Post Structuralism, Intertextuality, Digital Humanities

Abstract

Purpose — This study examines how Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) literature challenges and extends post-structuralist critiques of authorship. It explores how AI-generated texts affect traditional concepts of creativity, originality, intentionality, and authorial authority, and provides a conceptual framework linking post-structuralist theory to algorithmic literary production.

Design/methodology/approach — The study employs a qualitative-interpretive and conceptual research design. It involves critical analysis and theoretical synthesis of post-structuralist concepts, including Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” Foucault’s “author-function,” Kristeva’s intertextuality, and Wimsatt and Beardsley’s intentional fallacy, applied to AI-generated literature.

Findings — Findings indicate that GenAI destabilizes conventional notions of authorship, redistributing creative agency across programmers, algorithms, datasets, corporate platforms, users, and readers. The role of readers is strengthened as active meaning-makers, especially in contexts where authorial intention is absent or unstable. AI-generated literature thus functions as a contemporary materialization of post-structuralist ideas.

Research limitations/implications — The study is theoretical and conceptual; empirical validation through user studies, case analyses, or comparative corpora would strengthen generalizability and practical applicability.

Practical implications — Insights from this study inform literary theory, digital humanities, and AI studies, guiding scholars in critically analyzing authorship, intertextuality, and distributed creativity in algorithmically mediated texts.

Originality/value — This study contributes a contemporary conceptual framework demonstrating how AI-generated literature operationalizes post-structuralist critiques of authorship and redefines reader and institutional roles in textual production.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Philip Abayomi Olorunfemi, Landmark College Lagos

He is research associate at the department of English, Landmark College Lagos

References

Alter, J., & Harari, J. V. (1980). Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Poetics Today, 2(1b). https://doi.org/10.2307/1772249

Arsene, A. I. (2023). A Review of Psychoanalysis and Literary Theory: An Introduction . Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.25.4.0523

Barnouw, D., & Iser, W. (1979). [The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response]. MLN, 94(5). https://doi.org/10.2307/2906576

Barros, A. (2025). The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Academy of Management Learning & Education. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2025.0053

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? FAccT 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Bergel, L., & Abrams, M. H. (1954). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Books Abroad, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/40093704

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., Arx, S. Von, Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Chelsea, L. F., Trevor, F., Lauren, G., Karan, G., Noah, G., Lisa, X., Xuechen, L., Tengyu, L., Ali, M., … Liang, P. (2021). On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models arXiv : 2108 . 07258v2 [ cs . LG ] 18 Aug 2021. ArXiv, 2108.07258.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Brooker, S. (2021). Proposing, disposing, proving: Barthes, intentionalism, and hypertext literary fiction. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 27(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2021.1906955

Capella, S. (2025). How does Generative AI Affect Patients’ Rights? A Focus on Privacy, Justice, and Autonomy. VOICES IN BIOETHICS, 11.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. In Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.56315/pscf3-22crawford

Creswell. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. In Public Administration (Vol. 77, Number 4).

Crosman, I., & Iser, W. (1980). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Poetics Today, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/1772421

Davis, A., & Humphreys, R. (2024). A Sartrean (or New Intentionalist*) Analysis of the Fallacy of the Intentional Fallacy: Thought, Consciousness and Conficts of Interests. Metodo, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.19079/metodo.12.1.61

Denzin, N. K. &, & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Chapter 5: Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, Revisited. Chapter 5.

Dickie, G., & Wilson, W. K. (1995). The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Beardsley. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/431349

Duncan, E. H., & Kristeva, J. (1982). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Leonardo, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1574758

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis : the critical study of language (2nd ed). In Routledge.

Fish, S. (1982). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Poetics Today, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/1772220

Floridi, L. (2021). GPT‐3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827044

Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences. In Minds and Machines (Vol. 30, Number 4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1

Formosa, P., Bankins, S., Matulionyte, R., & Ghasemi, O. (2025). Can ChatGPT be an author? Generative AI creative writing assistance and perceptions of authorship, creatorship, responsibility, and disclosure. AI and Society, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02081-0

Foucault, M. (1979). Authorship: What is an author? In Screen (Vol. 20, Number 1). https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/20.1.13

Gervais, D. J. (2022). AI Derivatives: the Application to the Derivative Work Right to Literary and Artistic Productions of AI Machines. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4022665

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). In Denzin, N. K. And Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. (Chapter 8, p. 191-215). 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Publication.

Holub, R. C., & Eagleton, T. (1985). Literary Theory: An Introduction. The German Quarterly, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.2307/406575

Isenberg, A., & Abrams, M. H. (1954). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/426915

Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Jandrić, P. (2024). The Creation of Myths as An Educational Strategy and Emancipatory Opportunity. Beijing International Review of Education, 6(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-06030002

Ji, Y. (2024). A Methodological Exploration of Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Korean Association for Qualitative Inquiry, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.30940/jqi.2024.10.3.25

Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue, and novel. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. In JSTOR.

Kristeva, J., Roudiez, L. S., Gora, T., & Jardine, A. (1982). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Poetics Today, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1772011

Lois Tyson. (2019). Critical Theory Today A User Friendly Guide. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Number 1).

Lund, B. D., & Naheem, K. T. (2024). Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of artificial intelligence authorship policies in top academic journals. Learned Publishing, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1582

Luusua, A. (2023). Katherine Crawford: Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01488-x

Mazzi, F. (2024). Authorship in artificial intelligence-generated works: Exploring originality in text prompts and artificial intelligence outputs through philosophical foundations of copyright and collage protection. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12310

McIlwain, C. D. (2007). Race, pigskin, and politics: A semiotic analysis of racial images in political advertising. Semiotica, 167. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2007.075

O’Hara, D., & Harari, J. V. (1981). Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/430363

O’Hara, D. T., & Iser, W. (1979). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/430052

Osmanovic-Thunström, A., & Steingrimsson, S. (2023). Does GPT-3 qualify as a co-author of a scientific paper publishable in peer-review journals according to the ICMJE criteria? A case study. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00055-7

Roland, E., So, R., & Long, H. (2025). The social AI author: modeling creativity and distinction in simulated cultural fields. In AI and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02790-0

Samuelson, P. (2023a). Legal Challenges to Generative AI, Part I. In Communications of the ACM (Vol. 66, Number 7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3597151

Samuelson, P. (2023b). Legal Challenges to Generative AI, Part I: Questioning the legality of using in-copyright works for training data and producing outputs derived from copyrighted training data. Communications of the ACM, 66(7).

Santini, C., Melosi, L., & Frontoni, E. (2024). Named Entity Recognition in Historical Italian: The Case of Giacomo Leopardi’s Zibaldone. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3967.

Tyson, L. (2014). Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide: Third edition. In Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide: Third Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760797

Ummah, M. S. (2019). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Number 1).

Wang, W., Hu, J., Wei, H., Ubul, K., Shao, W., Bi, X., He, J., Li, Z., Ding, K., Jin, L., & Gao, L. (2024). Survey on text analysis and recognition for multiethnic scripts. Journal of Image and Graphics, 29(6). https://doi.org/10.11834/jig.240015

Wellek, R., & Abrams, M. H. (1954). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and Critical Tradition. Comparative Literature, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/1768493

Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (2019). “The intentional fallacy.” In Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern: A Reader. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv3029rhh.37

Wood, T. (2012). The act of fictional communication in a hermeneutic pragmatics. Research in Language, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0039-4