No, I want to be really strict on what we're saying is equivalent to a Kuhnian paradigm/disciplinary matrix, otherwise you're not going to understand his concept of "paradigm." Also, if we are strict in this way, then we can employ the notion effectively in understanding practices that don't have such Kuhnian paradigms because we can use the concept to highlight how these practices differ from the ones with actual paradigms, hence, these practices silhouetted against the background of the hard sciences, we can see highlight details from these practices.

Remember, Kuhn developed the notion of paradigm to understand how it was that science was able to achieve things that the social sciences in particular couldn't: how the scientists could perceive anomalies, know when an idea had been refuted or agree when a questioned had been answered, and periodically overthrow its basic ideas in astonishing reformations of thought. It doesn't do to extend the idea to other discourses that don't achieve these things, since then the concept loses its explanatory power.

And the Bloom example is exactly what I mean. Anxiety of Influence isn't a shared paradigm unless everybody in the social practice - everybody - buys into it. You're not a poet if you're not doing it - not, Harold Bloom, one man, doesn't consider you a poet worthy of the name if you're not doing it, but the entire community engaged in the enterprise doesn't consider you a poet, and you, the poets, can tell the poets from the nonpoets, just as the evolutionary biologist can push to the side the person who doesn't believe in natural selection. Whereas the fact that we get into methodological and taxonomic arguments about who's a poet and what poets are doing is an emphatic reason for saying that poets don't share a disciplinary matrix, or ever have.