produce large and significant movements that change formations -- social formations -- and this is really to take sort of a reversal of perspective. You take, in a way, what was left out of the official histories and use that as your clue to write a history of suspicion that something has been left out. A history like that of the American Revolution would be fascinating and I know at least one person -- Larry Goodwyn at Duke -- who is working on such a project. Well anyway, reversal seems to be a method of genealogy. Another is one connected to it and that's marginality. You don't just pay attention to what the leaders said -- or the men said, or whoever the dominant group is -- you look for the marginal discourses that do two things. They both make clear that there was a marginal discourse and they also show more clearly what the assumptions of the dominant history or discourse was. So marginality is another feature of what might be called a genealogy or archaeological method. The third one seems to me just a very practical principle, its the principle of discontinuity, and that means write your history without the assumption that history is continuous, without the assumption it will end up being a rational story, without the assumption it has a beginning, a middle and an end, but rather accept history in what is called its "materiality", in other words along with all of its contingencies, its