To acuse Foucault or Bourdieu of idealism is simply not knowing what their work was all about. For instance, Foucault`s work is not only referred to power: in the case of such thinker, it is needed to have a broader idea, the whole picture of his work, so to trace the movement of his thought-in-progress that brought all sort of problems into the table. Once again you dismiss what other philosophers have said about Foucault`s work (eg. Deleuze). You may have read a lot of him, but to conclude that he is an idealist is also to conclude that you have wasted your time reading him as you did not understand anything of his genealogies. While you are not capable of giving the sense of what you have studied about him, at the time that what you have said does not show anything of it, we can think that you are just not being honest about what u know of him.
If it is the case that u could speak about the whole work of an author doing the proper digestions about what their different thought are all about, then we can give some credit to your great tout-court assertions. Meanwhile we can take this statements -as well as many others- as just a pretext to hold your decontextualized points, as the pragmatic manner to give your arguments the effect of a temperated reasoning, on the way to feed your OOO presumptions. This is like very cheaty for you and for anyone.
The same can be said concerning to what you said about Bourdieu`s work. I am pretty sure that you have no idea of his work,. that you don`t understand nothing about it, and that your are just using him as an example of what you cannot demostrate with arguments. But you felt confident to put him near Foucault to insist in the dismissive effect of your re-textualized reasoning (as you thought that any of your readers would not complain).
To my mind, you speak and write too much, your paranoic race to get things written and to demonstrate your points within this reactive blogging manners just can show us all the lack of patient and digestion you have regarding to authors and their work.
For example, you insist in saying that your ontology is deleuzian, and you defend it as a flat ontology. But there are not signs of any spinozian influence in your idea of flatness. You might say, “Oh but I am not interested” “Oh, but my work goes in another direction” “Oh, i don`t give a damn”. This pragmatic sense of doing things is the lowest way to do philosophy: this form of “what to do with an author” or “what shall I write about this work that I don`t even quite understand nor find useful to my selfish concretions”, all this way to utilize the substantial materials of thought, makes philosophy a selfish joke. I guess that`s why most of your readers enjoy reading your post as a soap opera or as a philosophical morbosity. Personally i enjoy all your philosophical blockages.
But to say that your ontology is deleuzian, and to claim it seriously as something worth to appropriate as yours, you have to be delezean, my friend: you have to embody the minimum of deleuzian experiencie in your life, if so. But your are not a bit deleuzian, your are fully lacanian. How can you compose and conciliate your lacanian influence with the assertion that your ontology is a flat and delezean one, if you just keep cutting the influences that leaded Deleuze to speak about immanence in the most spinozian way? You really must be joking, its never to late to accept it.
If u want to hold and embrace your ontology as flat and as deleuzian as you insist fiercely to say, you should take seriously the spinonizan influence on Deleuze and not to fake it in their name. Or for instance, at least, you can give some sense to the part II of his book on Spinoza and expressionism, where he states all the basic lines to understand and to work on any flat ontology.
...
