Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, and the Concept of the Author

The concept of the author has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny in post-structuralist theory. Two influential figures in this discourse are Michel Foucault and the collaborative duo Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. The concepts of the author proposed by these thinkers challenge traditional notions of authorship and creation. While their theories differ in emphasis and approach, they collectively underscore the complexities and multiplicities inherent in the act of creation. They invite us to embrace a more fluid, interconnected, and collaborative understanding of authorship.

1. Michel Foucault's Concept of the Author

In his essay "What is an Author?", Foucault challenges the traditional notion of the author as the originator of meaning. Instead, he presents the author as a function of discourse, a construct that categorizes, limits, and controls the proliferation of meanings.

Foucault's key points on the author include:

• Author-function: Foucault argues that the author is not merely an individual but a function of discourse. The author-function emerges from a complex interplay of legal, institutional, and societal norms that dictate how texts are received and interpreted.
• Death of the Author: Foucault, like Roland Barthes, suggests that the traditional notion of the author as the primary source of meaning is limiting. Instead, he emphasizes the multiplicity of meanings and interpretations that a text can generate.
• Discursive Formations: For Foucault, texts do not exist in isolation. They are part of broader discursive formations that shape and are shaped by societal structures and power dynamics.

2. Deleuze and Guattari's Concept of the Author

Deleuze and Guattari's views on the author are intricately tied to their broader philosophical project, which challenges hierarchical structures and celebrates multiplicities and flows. Their primary work, "A Thousand Plateaus," offers insights into their understanding of authorship.

Key points of Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the author include:

• Rhizomatic Structure: Unlike traditional hierarchical structures, Deleuze and Guattari propose the rhizome as a model for understanding knowledge and creation. In a rhizomatic structure, any point can connect to any other point, emphasizing non-linearity and multiplicity.
• Desiring-Machines: Deleuze and Guattari view individuals not as unified subjects but as assemblages of desires and flows. The author, in this context, is just another "desiring-machine" in a network of interconnected machines.
• Collective Assemblage of Enunciation: They challenge the individualistic notion of authorship, proposing that texts result from a collective assemblage of enunciation. Creation is always collaborative, even if it appears to be the work of a single individual.

The Author between Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari

• Function vs. Flow: While both Foucault and Deleuze/Guattari challenge the traditional notion of the author, their approaches differ. Foucault focuses on the author as a function, a product of societal norms and structures. Deleuze and Guattari, on the other hand, emphasize flow and assemblage, viewing the author as a node in a network of desiring-machines.
• Structure: Foucault's analysis revolves around discursive formations and institutional structures that give rise to the author-function. Deleuze and Guattari, conversely, propose a more fluid and decentralized model of knowledge and creation, as seen in their concept of the rhizome.
• Agency: While Foucault's author is constrained by the structures of discourse, Deleuze and Guattari's author (or desiring-machine) is an active participant in the creation and proliferation of meanings, albeit in a collective and interconnected manner.

See also: Barthes's "The Death of the Author" and Foucault's "What is an Author?"

Conceptual Personae / Character Explained

A "Conceptual Character" or "Conceptual Personae" is a notion developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their co-authored book 'What is Philosophy?". It serves to designate  fictitious or semi-fictional characters, created by one or more authors in order to convey one or more ideas. What makes a personae or character "conceptual" is simply their bearing some concept represented of convyed by them.  Even if originally a historical individual may have existed, he was subsequently used by authors who took it up as their own. 

According to Deleuze and Guattari: 

The conceptual persona is not the philosopher's representative but, rather, the reverse: the philosopher is only the envelope of his principal conceptual persona and of all the other personae who are the intercessors [ intercesseurs], the real subjects of his philosophy. Conceptual personae are the philosopher's "heteronyms," and the philosopher's name is the simple pseudonym of his personae. I am no longer myself but thought's aptitude for finding itself and spreading across a plane that passes through me at several places. The philosopher is the idiosyncrasy of his conceptual personae. The destiny of the philosopher is to become his conceptual persona or personae, at the same time that these personae themselves become something other than what they are historically, mythologically, or commonly (the Socrates of Plato, the Dionysus of Nietzsche, the Idiot of Nicholas of Cusa). The conceptual persona is the becoming or the subject of a philosophy, on a par with the philosopher, so that Nicholas of Cusa, or even Descartes, should have signed themselves "the Idiot," just as Nietzsche signed himself ''the Antichrist" or "Dionysus crucified." In everyday life speech-acts refer back to psychosocial types who actually attest to a subjacent third person: "I decree mobilization as President of the Republic," "I speak to you as father," and so on. (What is Philosohy, 64).