A homogeneous epistemological field enables political tactical uses of discourse

Evidence

Now the fact that this epistemic web is so tightly woven certainly does not mean that everyone is thinking along the same lines. It is in fact a precondition for not thinking along the same lines or for thinking along different lines; and it is that which makes the differences politically pertinent. If different subjects are to be able to speak, to occupy different tactical positions, and if they are to be able to find themselves in mutually adversarial positions, there has to be a tight field, there has to be a very tightly woven network to regularize historical knowledge. As the field of knowledge becomes more regular, it becomes increasingly possible for the subjects who speak within it to be divided along strict lines of confrontation, and it becomes increasingly possible to make the contending discourses function as different tactical units within overall strategies (which are not simply a matter of discourse and truth, but also of power, status, and economic interests). The tactical reversibility of the discourse is, in other words, directly proportional to the homogeneity of the field in which it is formed. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 223

Categorization

• DEFINE: Foucault’s key methodological claim: tactical reversibility is directly proportional to the homogeneity of the field of formation — the tighter the epistemic web, the more politically usable the discourse.
• XREF: Connects to how Islamophobia discourse functions as a tightly-woven field whose concepts (Orientalism, biopolitics) get tactically redeployed across opposing positions. — connects to: Discourse produces knowledge that shapes perceptions and enacts power — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 687; A discourse both enables and constrains how a topic can be constructed; Knowledge produced by discourse subjects those who are known to power (+6 more)

Related

• Knowledge produced by discourse subjects those who are known to power (similarity 0.85)
• Historical discourse functions as a transferable tactic, not an ideology (similarity 0.84)
• Historico-political discourse claims partisan truth that functions as a weapon, excluding juridical universality (similarity 0.82)
• Foucault replaces ideology with discourse because social statements are never simply true or false. (similarity 0.81)
• Discourse is a system through which knowledge becomes power over the known. (similarity 0.81)
• Discourse operates as a strategic field of force-relations, not mere representation (similarity 0.81)
• Discourse exceeds ideology by refusing the true-false distinction about facts (similarity 0.81)
• Discourse produces knowledge that shapes perceptions and enacts power (similarity 0.80)
• Historical discourse functioned as an instrument forged in struggles over power. (similarity 0.80)
• Power requires an economy of true discourses to function. (similarity 0.79)