THEORIES OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY

Defining autobiography is notoriously difficult. To consider autobiography as a historical discourse and distinct from fiction is currently (perhaps surprisingly to some) an unfashionable position. It is not, however, one which should be dismissed out of hand; not only because such a position may give insights into the condition of autobiography, but also because issues of historicity, reference and individuality relate directly to people's everyday experiences.

The difficulty in defining autobiography has arisen from the sense of relativism and indeterminacy commonly associated with post-structuralist literary theories. In failing to find a formal definition of the genre, many theorists of autobiography simply refuse any generic difference between autobiography and fiction. Numerous critics in recent years have argued for the fictional status of autobiography. For instance, Robert Elbaz states that ‘through the process of mediation (by linguistic reality) and suspension (due to the text's lack of finality and completion), autobiography can only be a fiction’, and Susanna Egan believes that fiction ‘ensnares reality from the beginning’ of the autobiographical act. Some commentators make up for this apparent fictionality of autobiography by claiming that a ‘higher truth’ can be rendered which goes beyond mere historical detail.