Yeah, I think it fits.
What I find interesting is how the notions of 'group' and subjectivity relate to discourse. There is a difference between a 'group-for-itself' and a 'group-in-itself'. You can belong to a group, class, or 'kind' without knowing it - not an explicit, organised or formalised collectivity - a 'group-in-itself' but not 'for-itself'. It is a difference between a mobilised class and a fractured, dislocated class. One of the key differences between these kinds of groups is subjectivity, self-appelation - whether we seen ourselves as belongig to this group or not. We can be told we belong to a group or class and its associated implications become imposed on us - you are this or that, as known and seen by others. Whether we acknowledge this, rebel against it or revell in it or not, it can have an impact on us. But groups exist without being formalised, named and known, kind of pre-discursive. Unless you are a strict nominalist, things, including groups, can exist prior to subjectively being known as such, named, and framed in a discourse with all of its extra-theoretical implications (political and personal baggage). It is unclear as to whether Foucault would seen there being anything pre-discursive, but in effect it is hard to know of such things without them being discursive - can we only know and talk of things (groups etc) when they are disursive formations - a bit of a truism I suppose.