In considering the question of who may speak as a member of a particular category - say, gender, race, class - we might deploy the authority machine. What kind of authority strategy is being deployed, for example, is a statement such as 'only a member of category A can properly speak on behalf of that category'?

1. To argue that membership of the category can be claimed only by virtue of material inscriptions (that is, membership is inscribed on the body of the claimant) is to localise the position in the individual. To the extent that the claimant subscribes to a generalised theory in terms of the practice that this entails, then a traditional authority claim is being made.
2. To argue that membership of the category can be claimed only by virtue of one's position in a codified structure (the social division of labour, for example) is to invoke a bureaucratic claim.

This classification enables the interrogation of authority claims in territorialising action. To claim that women must speak on behalf of women, blacks on behalf of blacks looks like a traditional mode. Claims made in respect of social class, however, may be bureaucratic insofar as the theory allows for social mobility (down as well as up). On the other hand, where the claim is that social class is inscribed (however transiently) in the habitus, the strategy shifts towards the traditional mode.

The coherent structure of the machine (which distinguishes it from an undimensioned network, for example) has visibly performed work on its object (albeit an imaginary one, in this instance, but see the key papers for more empirical illustrations).