Representation[sic]own identity by a conscience and self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of powerwhich subjugates and makes subject to.(Foucault,1982, pp.208, 212)Making discourse and representation more historical has therefore been matched, in Foucault, by anequally radical historicization ofthe subject.‘One has to dispense with the constituent subject, toget rid of the subject itself, that’s to say, to arrive at an analysis which can account for the constitution of the subject within a historical framework’ (Foucault,1980, p.115).Where, then, is ‘the subject’ in this more discursive approach to meaning, representation and power?Foucault’s‘subject’ seems to be produced through discourse intwodifferent sensesor places.First, the discourse itself produces ‘subjects’ -figures who personify the particular forms of knowledge which the discourse produces. These subjects have the attributes we would expect as these aredefined by the discourse:the madman, the hysterical woman, the homosexual,the individualizedcriminal,andsoon. Thesefiguresarespecific tospecificdiscursiveregimesand historicalperiods.But the discourse also produces aplace fo r the subject(i.e. the reader or viewer, whois also‘subjected to’ discourse)from whichits particular knowledge and meaning most makessense.Itis not inevitable that all individuals in a particular period will become the subjects of a particulardiscourse in this sense, and thus the bearers of its power/knowledge. But for them -us -to do so,they -we -must locate themselves/ourselves in thepositionfrom which the discourse makes mostsense,and thus become its ‘subjects’ by‘subjecting’ ourselves to its meanings, power and regulation. All discourses, then, constructsubject-positions,from which alone they make sense.