I need to be able to create a scenario where activists in the gay
rights movement use Foucalt's four principles (reversal,
discontinuity, specificity, and exteriority) against more traditional
ways of making sense of the lives of gays.

I am having trouble coming up with specific examples. Can anyone help
me apply each of these four principles to the above example?

---

Request for Question Clarification by mathtalk-ga on 06 May 2003 20:33 PDT

Hi, poodlepoop-ga:

You are perhaps thinking of the modern French philosopher Michael
Foucault (1926-1984) ?

regards, mathtalk

---

Clarification of Question by poodlepoop-ga on 07 May 2003 09:26 PDT

Yes, we have a group of four that is to make a presentation/discussion
as follows:

"To resist and thwart the power of the many discursive practices
("discourse") we use for making sense of things, Michael Foucault
proposes using the 4 principles of reversal, discontinuity,
specificity, and exteriority in his work as a peculiar kind of
intellectual and cultural critic."

My job is to explain how activists in the gay rights movement might
employ these 4 principles against more traditional discourses or ways
of making sense of the lives of gays.

Unfortunately, I have a few random thoughts and need to have a
well-thought out (help! i can't think!) understanding of all four, and
be able to explain how they would apply in the given situation (ie.,
speaking as though I were Foucault).  The others are doing the same
for feminist activists, activists for the disabled, etc.  My problem
is understanding how F would use his principle of reversal to counter
"traditional disourses" . . not sure what to use for traditional, then
the same for each of the other three . . also same difficulty
understanding what (traditional) discourse I (he) would be countering.

Any possibility for some help, soon? Thank you for responding.

---

Request for Question Clarification by mathtalk-ga on 07 May 2003 10:44 PDT

Foucault's thesis is that we are all influenced by logiaphobia, a fear
of discourse, and that to avoid the disruptive effects of unrestrained
language that would otherwise flood through us, we learn a number of
"traditional" or stylized "ways of speaking" to contain it.  Politics
and sexuality are the most "tightly" regulated subjects, in his view.

The "critical" principle of reversal is apparently implicit in the
very decision to speak about (fill in the blank) in a non-traditional
manner.  Of course one needs to continue in this vein a bit... what is
the traditional way of speaking about gays?  A starting point might be
identifying "cliches" about gays such as "being in the closet", "being
outed", flamboyance, etc., but I suspect the principle of reversal
aims at obtaining insight into have these cliches serve as "warning
posts" to steer discourse away from the shoals of subversion.

The other three principles are labelled "genealogical" (at least in
English translation).  If you like I can persue the discussion with
you as an answer, but I don't consider myself an expert on Foucault's
"A Discourse on Language" (or on specific discourse about gays, for
that matter).  I'm somewhat familiar with Foucault's "The Order of
Things" and his personal life, but Discourse is a tremendously
challenging philosophical analysis.

regards, mathtalk

---

Clarification of Question by poodlepoop-ga on 07 May 2003 11:40 PDT

Yes, I would like your help in the form of "answer," please. 
I seem to have trouble paring all the large philosophical words into
plain English which is what I have to do in order to first understand
what I am talking about, then help my group understand it as well.

First, I do not understand what you mean by "fear of discourse." I
also was thrown by the use of the word in the intro - see above in " "
- when I read F I understood the usage simply as what I have always
heard in common usage - ie., discourse = talk. I could understand if
you say he is talking about "fear of talking about things" but I don't
get that from the reading. This is all I have so far:

 Foucault seems to be most directly concerned with problems of power
and legitimacy.   He tackles power from the angle of knowledge (and I
believe, language) as a system of thought that becomes controlling in
a society.  In other words, power is gained by the imposition of
socially and institutionally legitimated ways of thinking and
expression.
    episteme
Function: noun
Definition: a system of understanding or a body of ideas which give
shape to the knowledge of that time


I am having a bear of a time getting the 4 principles into it and
especially relating how

1. F would say, "If I apply my principle of "reversal" (define???) to
the traditional discourse about gays (which is . . . ?) then I would
challenge/counter/discuss that traditional discourse by saying . . .
what??

and of course, 

2. F would say, "If I apply my principle of "discontinuity"
(define???) to the traditional discourse about gays (which is . . . ?)
then I would challenge/counter/discuss that traditional discourse by
saying . . . what??"

followed by

3. F would say, "If I apply my principle of "specificity" (define???)
to the traditional discourse about gays (which is . . . ?) then I
would challenge/counter/discuss that traditional discourse by saying .
. . what??"
  
and

4. F would say, ""If I apply my principle of "exteriority" (define???)
to the traditional discourse about gays (which is . . . ?) then I
would challenge/counter/discuss that traditional discourse by saying .
. . what??"

By the way, bless you for your input!! I realize that all of
philosophy and especially the later philosophers are extremely complex
. . . and use complex language . . . but can't the thought behind the
language be expressed with more simplicity and clarity?