I’m not making a case for plagiarism, but I am about to say it’s socially constructed and, like anything else, doesn’t exist outside of a specific context or suite of contexts. It wasn’t a concept until it was a concept, and then it took 1600 years or so to not only become a fully formed concept with a label attached to it but also to be addressed, though indirectly, through newly created copyright laws.
In other cultures and in other periods during Western culture, plagiarism didn’t exist, either as a word or as a concept. Writing something original meant writing something steeped in origins. Poets and writers shared lines and themes routinely, though too much imitation could lead to criticism. In one early case in Rome, in which a poet (Fidentinus) recited another poet’s work (Martial) as if it were his own, Martial wasn’t upset about his work being used without attribution. He was concerned about not being paid. He wanted the poet to buy the poems if he was going to perform them as if they were his. That’s not a bad idea. If I could sell my poems to another poet for a profit—well, of course I wouldn’t. (Or would I?)
What did Martial do in response to Fidentinus? He wrote a bunch of unflattering poems about the guy, in which he characterized him as a kidnapper—a plagiarus (ah!)—which Ben Johnson picked up on about 1500 years later in 1601 when he coined the term plagiary to denote someone who was guilty of literary theft. Copyright laws followed in England and the United States in the 1700s, which accompanied a shift in the concept of originality from something with origins to something wholly new, as well as greater distribution of mass-produced books, a larger body of folks who were profiting from creative works, and a desire for academicians to protect their writing.
Again, I’m not making the case for plagiarism, but I am interested in removing it from an ahistorical context and situating it in history because it’s something we came to, collectively, not something that simply exists and has always existed—just as mental-health diagnostic labels are something we’ve come to, collectively and often with great harm as a result, as opposed to things that exist and have always existed.
Our consciousness about things changes. We will things into being, and we’re sometimes wrong about what we think we see (and perceive as immutable and everlasting). The intersection between plagiarism and the assumption that someone who plagiarized must be mentally ill, particularly with one or more personality disorders, interests me because both the concept of plagiarism and the concept of personality disorders are socially constructed, have come into existence at different points in our history, and will continue to shift over time.
In the case of plagiarism, AI is causing such a shift right now. We’re coming into consciousness about that intersection and what it means for writing and writers. In the case of personality disorders, there are shifts as well, as there should be. They were almost removed from the DSM-5 because of the ongoing debate about whether they’re even mental illnesses. Borderline personality disorder in particular has come under much deserved scrutiny because it’s so broadly defined as to be unhelpful as a diagnostic framework, it’s fettered with gender-based bias, it’s dismissive of trauma, and it disregards the fact that borderline traits appear to be a form of delayed social development, not a personality disorder or form of mental illness.
Someone can plagiarize without being mentally ill. Someone can be a piece of shit without being mentally ill. We can talk about beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors without adding a diagnostic label, especially one we’re not qualified to use because we’re not licensed mental-health professionals. The DSM-5 has innumerable flaws and has always been the product of a colonized mindset, one that situates issues solely within individuals while ignoring larger factors such as institutionalized discrimination. It’s also led a not insignificant number of lay folks to label anyone whose behavior they don’t like with clinical terms they themselves don’t understand and outside of their historical and contemporary contexts, which in turn ends up harming everyone who embraces, lives with, or has had those diagnostic labels foisted on them, as well as perpetuating ignorance, fear, and stigma at all levels in our society.
Said another way, some things about being human are a feature, not a bug. We are kind of pieces of shit who do piece of shit stuff all the time. It’s not all Buddha nature up inside us. There’s some of that, but it’s not the whole thing. We are dark, and that darkness extends beyond mental illness. Bless our collective hearts.
