Is there any deconstructionist theory that we can 'apply' to 'make a revolution'?
I'm going be a pain in the ass here and question even further the idea of 'making a revolution' What the hell does that mean? And is that really the job of theory?
I think of it more like a guide. We're talking about philosophy here, not politics.
Politics and movements are about achieving measureable goals (at least, that's my understanding)
By its own logic, postmodern theory can only serve to inform us, perhaps to incite us, but not to direct any kind of action.

So I read 'applications of foucault' not to mean making a revolution, but to apply his ideas to our own experiences in order to make better sense of our world and inform our choices.

For instance: I think that those in the gay rights movement who are dead set on proving that homosexuality is something that they people are born with could take a lesson from Foucault. Don't they know that they are just buying into the same logic of western scientific discourse that brought about the label (and justification of condemnation) of 'the homosexual' in the first place?

Exactly who are they trying to free from oppression, and at what cost?
I'll answer my own questions via my understanding of Foucault.
a. They are trying to free the rich white gay people from being denied access to the privaledges they'd enjoy if they were straight.
b. The cost is paid through the denial of acceptance of all the 'other' queers - those of us who don't care what Western science has to say about our bodies, who don't fit into a gender or sexuality binary (and don't want to) those of use who are not rich and/or white and/or American.
This idea of 'otherness' is so basic Foucault - you know what you are by knowing what you are not. Conservative gays sell out the other queers, the 'real deviants,' by aligning themselves with straight culture, by saying "we're just like you, love is love is love"

I'd like the gay rights activists, the ones who are so dead set on ensuring middle America that we are 'just like them' took a lesson from Foucault. Think about the other identities you are foreclosing, marginalizing, by declaring yourselves 'just like' straight people. I'd like them to think about what Foucault says about power and its releationship to knowledge and how its the rich white gays who get to determine the discourse on gay rights, the 'causes' of homosexuality, and what it means to be queer. . .

*bing*
round two!

i think the difficult thing about Foucault is that if you really really get into his stuff, he ultimately contradicts himself on some levels.
for example, Foucault would totally do away with academic institutions calling them "prisons" and stuff but i'm sure a large majority of those who were introduced to Foucault did so in college.

there were also many other instances...i'm sure if u did a google search on "foucault" & "contradictions" u'd have a field day.

i bring this up only to highlight the dilemma in trying to dissect his stuff too much because eventually, you'll end up with a circular argument.
that being said, instead of questioning the philosophical points of Foucault, it may be easier to just pick one specific thing and apply it...like what we did in the earlier thread about "Panopticon," surveillance and modern technology.

come up with your own theory & application...the wilder the better.

as far as what toni & eli have written, i do agree that one of Foucault's greatest contributions have been the normalization of homosexuality...his belief that u can change society's opinion on a type of "transgression" by infiltrating academia.

as far as using his stuff to cause a revolution, i disagree with toni's statement:
"I think you cannot somehow apply foucaults theories and then make a revolution from it or free your self or change the world. " simply because i think many people who come across his stuff find his theories liberating on many fronts...even more so than his peers.

to me, the greatest stumbling block of Foucault is that as a philosopher, his theories were never as straightforward & easy to digest as others. i would probably describe him as "all over the place."

after all, when you think of Nietzsche, Sarte, Derrida, Lyotard, they're pretty easy to summarize in that they're writings have been more or less focused in on area.
i wish i could say the same for Foucault.

anyways, just my ramblings for the day =)

i'm glad others have kept this tribe rolling while i was away locked up in prison...lolz.