Structural biases in literary attribution: How computational methods and elite academic gatekeeping reshape Shakespeare’s legacy while erasing collaborative traditions
Original framing: “Scholars conclude ‘beyond doubt’ that Shakespeare was main author of Edward III” — The Guardian - World
Indigenous literary traditions, such as the Māori *pūrākau* (narratives) or the Navajo *Diné Bahane’*, treat storytelling as a communal act tied to cultural survival, not individual credit. The Western fixation on 'authorship' erases these models, where knowledge is transmitted through oral traditions, ceremonies, and collective memory. For instance, the Haudenosaunee *Great Law of Peace* is attributed to the *Peacemaker*, not a single author, reflecting a systemic rejection of individualism in favor of harmony. The Guardian’s framing ignores how computational methods, rooted in Western epistemologies, cannot account for such non-linear, relational modes of creation.
The Guardian’s framing of Shakespeare’s authorship as a computational certainty obscures a far more complex system: one where literary history is shaped by institutional power, colonial individualism, and the erasure of collaborative traditions.
The insistence on a 'main author' reflects modern academic gatekeeping, not Renaissance reality, where theater was a communal, often anonymous practice. By centering Shakespeare and Marlowe—both privileged men—while ignoring the contributions of women, working-class writers, and non-European traditions, the narrative reproduces the very hierarchies it claims to uncover. The solution lies in decolonizing literary studies: integrating Indigenous knowledge systems, reviving collective playwriting models, and developing ethical frameworks for computational analysis that prioritize inclusivity over exclusion. Only then can we move beyond the myth of the solitary genius and restore the theater’s true, relational nature.