Founders of discursivity are produced by power but not bound to obey its logic.

Evidence

The fact that Foucault’s well-known disinterest in colonialism and coloniality opened a gap not only for Said’s project but also for a host of fields with such labels as “postmodernism” and “postcoloniality” is testimonial to the predominance of departures and differences over analogies in his work as a founder of discursivity. It is then reasonable to argue that only the Austinian conditions of felicity residing within and dominating central domains make Foucault’s ideological author possible. This view of conditions does not bank on a particular logic of power or a predictable outcome of power’s constructions, but can include even chance as a possible factor. Thus, it is not as reasonable to argue that, because such authors are the product of the central domain and its conditions of felicity, their work, their discursivity, must obey the logic of power within either the domain or the discursive formation. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 94

Categorization

• DEFINE: Adapts Austinian speech-act ‘conditions of felicity’ as the enabling conditions for a power’s ideological authors.
• XREF: Pairs with Hallaq’s treatment of Foucault elsewhere; also echoes Said’s criticism that Foucault ignored colonialism. — connects to: Said’s Foucauldian ‘will to power’ discourse operates without imperialist agency or design. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 759