Reverse Versus Radical Discourse: A Qualified Critique of Butler and Foucault, with an Alternative Interactive Theorisation

This article explores the concept of reverse discourse, as suggested by Foucault and Butler. It is argued that Butler's concept of subject formation is overly determinist, as is Foucault's of discourse. Following Scott's critique, it is argued that there is a strong and a weak conceptualisation of dominant ideology. Discourses are in competition for authority, where dominant ideology is the discourse of more powerful decision-makers, while subaltern ideologies persist. This leads to a more interactive theory of structural constraint and the conditions of possibility for radical action. Social actors can change power relations by reproducing dominant discourses while reversing implied power-authority relations–reverse discourse. Alternatively, more radically, they can resist dominant ideology by attempting to build consensus around subaltern ideology, which is incommensurable with dominant ideology. Reverse discourse has the advantage over radical critique in that it reproduces the natural-order-of-things. However, it has the disadvantage of reproducing reifying norms.