To think “rhizomatic” means to think “in terms of things or objects, among objects”- intermezzo…
The rhizome is one of the fundamental concepts of the post-structuralism and post-modernism philosophy introduced by G. Deleuze and F. Guattari. The concept was intended to be the base and the form of realization of their “nomadologic” project. The rhizome is supposed to counter unchangeable linear structures (both of existence and thinking) which they believed to be typical for the classical European culture.
It is what Deleuze calls an “image of thought,” based on the botanical rhizome, that apprehends multiplicities.
As a Mode of Knowledge and Model for Society
Deleuze and Guattari use the terms “rhizome” and “rhizomatic” to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In A Thousand Plateaus, they oppose it to an arborescent (hierarchic, tree-like) conception of knowledge, which works with dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with planar and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. Their use of the “orchid and the wasp” is taken from the biological concept of mutualism, in which two different species interact together to form a multiplicity (i.e. a unity that is multiple in itself). Hybridization or horizontal gene transfer would also be good illustrations.
As a Model Generating Unexpected and Non-systematic Differences
The inextricable root system of a plant could be an illustrative example of the rhizome. According to Deleuze and Guattari, in the rhizome it is not possible to distinguish the beginning from the end, to find a center or any centering principle (“genetic axis”), any code; it is always in the middle, between things, intermezzo.
In the authors’ opinion, the rhizome is capable of generating non-systematic and unexpected differences that cannot be contraposed as having or lacking any particular feature. The construction of the rhizome determines this function. The rhizome includes partitioning lines and relative speeds of moving along these lines compose its organization. The planar movement of the rhizome resists chronology and organization, instead favoring a nomadic system of growth and propagation.
Connections of lines of the rhizome constitute a so-called “plateau” — a temporary zone of stability in its constantly pulsing configuration.
However, the authors principally contradistinguish these zones from the typical for “arborescent structures” binary vectors of development. A tree is a symbol of power and control penetrating all the aspects of people’s social life. “Power is always tree-structured”. Note, that all science schools are organized the same tree-like way.
Along with this, nomadology puts forward the problem of interaction between the linear “arborescent” and non-linear “rhizomorphic” kinds of environment. According to the interpretation of M. A. Mozjeyco,
“rhizomorphic environments have the immanent creative potentiality of self-organizing and can be called synergetic.”
Principles of the Rhizome
Deleuze and Guattari introduce A Thousand Plateaus by outlining the concept of the rhizome (quoted from A Thousand Plateaus):
· Principles of connection and heterogeneity:
“…any point of a rhizome can be connected to any other, and must be”;
· Principle of multiplicity:
“it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a substantive, “multiplicity”, that it ceases to have any relation to the One”;
· Principle of asignifying rupture:
“a rhizome may be broken, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines”;
· Principle of cartography and decalcomania:
“a rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model; it is a “map and not a tracing”.
The Multiplicity
To a first approximation, the “multiplicity” attribute of the rhizome is a negation of the “unity” attribute of a tree.
The rhizome manifests this negation through the absence of the main stem or the main root and demonstrates this absence on all the levels where the tree shows “unity”.
To the second approximation, the “multiplicity” feature is a negation of such an attribute of a tree as some singular thing from which it has originated:
- If we represent the rhizome by a book, it would have neither a subject nor an author. The multiplicity in such consisting of sense petals book is not going to be united by anything common like its origin or other uniting things (either a common subject or the author). Not only such book but also its subject and its author will not be something whole, uniting the petals of sense it consists of.
“The book would have been made of matters differently formed from completely different dates and speeds. As soon as we assign someone’s authorship to the book, we neglect the work of matters and their outer relationship. We start to fabricate “good of God” instead of geological movements.”
- If we represent the rhizome as a multiplicity consisting of an orchid and a wasp, this multiplicity won’t have any singular origin.
- If we represent the rhizome as an array of threads leading from a marionette to an actor, this array is not going to have a singular origin in the form of the actor’s will. From the actor’s side, there will be just a plexus of nerve fiber and the actor himself will be just another marionette controlled by other threads or some other plexus of threads or strings.
A Multiplicity is Originated by a Conflict of Flows, not by a Single One
If we imagine the rhizome to be a book, its content is going to be generated not by some single thing or author but by the conflict of flows moving along certain lines. There is movement along certain lines and with certain speeds in the rhizome and different flows may accelerate, some may lag one another. When one flow accelerates in relation to another flow, there appears the phenomenon of acceleration, of a gap. When a flow is behind another flow there appears the phenomenon of viscosity, retard. The conflict between the speeds of different flows creates the substance of the rhizome.
In post-modernism, the rhizome is likened to a weed, which vines through obstacles (trenches, ditches, pits) just because it is surrounded, crowed out and restricted by cultivated plants.
And, the bigger the pressure, the wider is the “radius of action” of the vining weed, the further it throws its tentacle-like sprouts, the more space of the peripheral ground becomes its living space.
The place of the rhizome is where there are cracks, faults, hollows, gaps and other defections of the human existence. It overcomes them its own way. It doesn’t recognize any uncrossable borders, neither natural nor artificial. The rhizome teaches us to move on the rough area of our existence. It helps us to multiply the sides, facets of the explored reality, turns a circle into a polygon. It is a very radical reorientation, especially if we recall Aristotle for whom the circle was the symbol of perfection. But here there are polygons. It hardly seems possible to imagine a more complete break with the tradition.
To think rhizomatic means to think “in terms of things or objects, among objects” (Intermezzo), orienting on a line in the above-mentioned sense but not on a point, aiming at an array of tangles and interlacements but not at a single center.
All content is released freely under WTFPL by default.
