Foucault’s author-typology needs intermediate stages between docile and discursive authors

Evidence

It is impossible for a discursive author (and Marx and Freud are nothing more than “schematic” examples, which is to say that they cannot provide an exclusive model) to arise within any formation without undergoing stages in between, however schematic they may be in turn. Said and Guénon happened to provide schematic examples of two more stages that we should recognize, and in fact have no way of avoiding, if we are to make full sense of the changing épistémès and of the power of critique that characterizes human history, and which Foucault himself acknowledged. The docile authors, the type that characterizes the greatest majority of authors (whatever authorship might mean), stand conscripted in the system of power, mostly not knowing that they are being conscripts. The discursive author, on the other hand, (unintentionally) defines the general contours of a discursive formation, without having control over the appropriation of his or her “work.” This author, in other words, provides the ideological paraphernalia by which the central domains legitimize, sustain, and define themselves, although this very provision reflects the conditions of felicity that empower their discourses and give them their performative edge. This much is clear enough. But in between these two types, there are at least two others, my account being—no less than that of Foucault—also schematic. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 337

Categorization

• XREF: Builds on the book’s earlier treatment of Foucault’s theory of the author-function and power; connects to the Guénon/Said examples carrying the argument.