This thesis examines the way that subversivity is produced in relation to the name of the author, as understood by Foucault, and what potential for ressistance that can be glimpsed there. This from the reading of three text that in different ways relate to that theme. Firstly, throught the reading of "Isis mamma är genusvetare, skribent och konstnär, min mamma är f.d. städerska, kokerska och dagisfröken, numera förtidspensionär med diagnosen fibromyalgi" by Lidija Praizović, a text that actively work with the internal production of different exteriorities. The text uses these exteriorities, both to commit the violation needed in order to establish it's perspective toward a capitalist publicity, and to anticipate the response and argument towards the text in the same publicity. The becoming of the proletarian class awereness is in the text partly formed in terms of origin and political ressentiment. But when used in litterature the analysis show that they produce subversive collective assemblies and question the border of political discourse. The way we become subjects in submission in terms of being bodies, irrational, specific in relation to a liberal sphere that produces the superior as invisible and bodyless, can establish it's pespective as human and universal when turned into literature. Throughout this processes the proletarian position is produced as an instance of power both internal to the text and pointing outwards, from the text. The analysis futher shows how conventions that regulate the spreading of discourse through the name of the author in capitalism, can be used to circulate experiences of submission that has the formation of collective assemblies as their potential. A process that is directly related to the post-­‐fordist capitalisms needs for new forms of life in order to reproduce. The two other texts, "Nej, man har inte rätt att skriva vad man vill" by Lyra Ekström Lindbäck, and "I huvudet på Lidija Praizović" by Tove Folkesson, was produceed as a reaction to the first texts apperance in the public sphere. The first one is critical to the text and the name, but is still making claims on a subversive position. The reading of it shows that the making of that claim, in relation to the need to produce ones own name as an author name in community with the liberal public sphere, results in a blocking of the subversive potential and a reduction of the subversive to only a marker on the name. A reaction that is in turn foreseen by the first text in it's working with the anticipation of readers responce. The reading of the second text shows how, throught the production of a complete affinity with the exteriority that is the athor name of Lidija Praizović, the potentially dangerous class position is reduced and disarmed. That occurs partly throught a reduction of the class position to aspects that only allows political ressentiment and loneliness. This turns the subversivity and the violation associated with the name of Lidija Praizović to functions for the name of Tove Folkesson. Something that in turn shows not only the potential of using these aspects of political becomings as grounds for building something that goes beyond them, but also the dangers of it. Both texts can therefore be seen as two different attempts to block the spreading of the subversive by using it solely to produce the name of the author.