Originally posted on sciy.org by Rich Carlson on Tue 10 Mar 2009 09:28 AM PDT
The evolution of discourse since 1950 certainly goes through Gilles
Deleuze and Felix Guattari whose: A Thousand Plateaus published in 1980
is an altogether different type of book. It is a book not comprised of
chapters but rather as a series of fields of intensities or plateaus
(this meaning of plateau they adopt from Gregory Bateson)
Bateson uses the term "*plateau* for
continuous regions of intensity constituted in such a way that they do
not allow themselves to be interrupted by any external termination, any
more than they allow themselves to build toward a climax....A plateau
is a piece of immanence. “
Interestingly, at the historical moment of inception of third order cybernetics whose non-linear flows give us chaos theory and complexity science, Deleuze and Guattari are molding a discourse whose concern for subjectivities and sociologies of state chart a parallel evolution. Just as chaos theorist are developing models of dissipative systems or butterfly effects, and distributive networks are building out toward a world wide internet*, Deleuze and Guattari are rejecting the hierarchical organization of philosophical texts, that proceed by dialectic, evolving a "rhizomatic" method as a more efficient way of tracing organic morphologies, apprehending "multiplicities" and comprehending the complexity of texts.
Although their ontology is founded on difference they make it clear that they do not want to become entangled in a simple dialectic of unity versus multiplicity. "What is important is not whether the flows are One of multiple we are past that point"(p23) Following the organic branching of a rhizome is certainly a conceptual evolution from tracing a dialectical tree back to its "roots" in some figure of "abstract" unity.
The development of the “rhizome as method†follows the evolution of representations, in which collective enunciations begin to approach the limits of possibility in thought and word. As such the evolution of the rhizome goes through Joyce and Nietzsche:
"Joyce's words, accurately described as having 'multiple roots', shatter the linear unity of the word, even of language, only to posit a cyclic unity of the sentence, text, or knowledge. Nietzsche's aphorisms shatter the linear unity of knowledge, only to invoke the cyclic unity of the eternal return."
and can be traced back to Lao Tzu
“Thought Lags Natureâ€
“And nature strays from the dialectical' way, the most classical and
well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of thought. Nature doesn't
work that way: in nature, roots are taproots with a more multiple,
lateral, and circular system of ramification, rather than a dichotomous
one.Thought lags nature. “
Although Deleuze and Guattari would have language follow nature very closely:
And so language rhizomes ceaselessly establishes connections
between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances
relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles. A semiotic chain
is like a tuber agglomerating very diverse acts, not only linguistic,
but also perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no
language in itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a
throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized languages. There is
no ideal speaker-listener, any more than there is a homogeneous
linguistic community.
I am posting a portion of the introduction to A Thousand Plateaus which describes the rhizome.
But the short definition of a "rhizome" is:
A rhizome as subterranean stem is absolutely different from roots
and radicles. Bulbs and tubers are rhizomes. Plants with roots or
radicles may be rhizomorphic in other respects altogether; the question
is whether plant life in its specificity is not entirely rhizomatic.
Additionally, there are also a series of terms employed by Deleuze and
Guattari that are important in any attempt to excavate meaning from the
multiple levels of complexity their texts couches.
The definition of terms such as assemblages, nomad, war machine, line
of flight, body without organs, can be found at this link: Glossary
r
..............................................................................................
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, 'Introduction: Rhizome', A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, 1980
A first type of book is the root-book. The tree is already the image of
the world, or the root the image of the world-tree. This is the
classical book, as noble, signifying, and subjective organic
interiority (the strata of the book). The book imitates the world, as
art imitates nature: by procedures specific to it that accomplish what
nature cannot or can no longer do. The law of the book is the law of
reflection, the one that becomes two. How could the law of the book
reside in nature, when it is what presides over the very division
between world and book, nature and art? One becomes two: whenever we
encounter this formula, even stated strategically by Mao or understood
in the most 'dialectical' way possible, what we have before us is the
most classical and well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of
thought. Nature doesn't work that way: in nature, roots are taproots
with a more multiple, lateral, and circular system of ramification,
rather than a dichotomous one. Thought lags behind nature.
Even the book as a natural reality is a taproot, with its pivotal spine
and surrounding leaves. But the book as a spiritual reality, the Tree
or Root as an image, endlessly develops the law of the one that becomes
two, then of the two that become four ... Binary logic is the spiritual
reality of the root-tree. Even a discipline as 'advanced' as
linguistics retains the root-tree as its fundamental image, and thus
remains wedded to classical reflection (for example, Chomsky and his
grammatical trees, which begin
at a point S and proceed by dichotomy). [...]
The radicle-system, or fascicular root, is the second figure of the
book, to which our modernity pays willing allegiance. This time, the
principal root has aborted, or its tip has been destroyed; an
immediate, indefinite multiplicity of secondary roots grafts onto it
and undergoes a flourishing
development. This time, natural reality is what aborts the principal
root, but the root's unity subsists, as past or yet to come, as
possible. We
must ask if reflexive, spiritual reality does not compensate for this
state of things by demanding an even more comprehensive secret unity,
or a more extensive totality. Take William Burroughs's cut-up
method: the folding of one text onto another, which constitutes
multiple and even adventitious roots (like a cutting), implies a
supplementary dimension to that of the texts under consideration. In
this supplementary dimension of folding, unity continues its spiritual
labour. That is why the most resolutely fragmented work can also be
presented as the Total Work or Magnum Opus.
Most modern methods for making series proliferate or a multiplicity
grow are perfectly valid in one direction, for example, a linear
direction, whereas a unity of totalization asserts itself even more
firmly in another, circular or cyclic, dimension. Whenever a
multiplicity is taken up in a structure, its growth is offset by a
reduction in its laws of combination. The abortionists of unity are
indeed angel makers, doctores angelici, because they affirm a properly
angelic and superior unity. Joyce's words, accurately described as
having 'multiple roots', shatter the linear unity of the word, even of
language, only to posit a cyclic unity of the sentence, text, or
knowledge. Nietzsche's aphorisms shatter the linear unity of knowledge,
only to invoke the cyclic unity of the eternal return, present as the
nonknown in thought. This is as much as to say that the fascicular
system does not really break with dualism, with the complementarity
between a subject and an object, a natural reality and a spiritual
reality: unity is consistently thwarted and obstructed in the object,
while a new type of unity triumphs in the subject. The world has lost
its pivot; the subject can no longer even dichotomize, but accedes to a
higher unity, of ambivalence or overdetermination, in an always
supplementary dimension to that of its object. The world has become
chaos but the book remains the image of the world: radicle-chaosmos
rather than root-cosmos. A strange mystification: a book all the more
total for being fragmented. At any rate, what a vapid idea the book as
the image of the world. In truth, it is not enough to say, 'Long live
the multiple', difficult as it is to raise that cry. No typographical,
lexical, or even syntactical cleverness is enough to make it heard. The
multiple must be made, not by always adding a higher dimension, but
rather the simplest of ways, by dint of sobriety, with the number of
dimensions one already has available - always n-1 (the only way the one
belongs to the multiple: always subtracted). Subtract the unique from
the multiplicity to be constituted; write at n-1 dimensions. A system
of this kind could be called a rhizome.
A rhizome as subterranean stem is absolutely different from roots and
radicles. Bulbs and tubers are rhizomes. Plants with roots or radicles
may be rhizomorphic in other respects altogether: the question is
whether plant life in its specificity is not entirely rhizomatic. Even
some animals are, in their pack form. Rats are rhizomes. Burrows are
too, in all of their functions of shelter, supply, movement, evasion,
and breakout. The rhizome itself assumes very diverse forms, from
ramified surface extension in all directions to concretion into bulbs
and tubers. When rats swarm over each other. The rhizome includes the
best and the worst: potato and couchgrass, or the weed Animal and
plant, couchgrass is crabgrass. We get the distinct feeling that we
will convince no one unless we enumerate certain approximate
characteristics of the rhizome.
1 and 2) Principles of connection and heterogeneity:
any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be.
This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point,
fixes an order The linguistic tree on the Chomsky model still begins at
a point b and proceeds by dichotomy. On the contrary, not every trait
in a rhizome is necessarily linked to a linguistic feature: semiotic
chains of every nature are connected to very diverse modes of coding
(biological, political, economic, etc.) that bring into play not only
different regimes of signs but also states of things of differing
status.
Collective assemblages of enunciation function directly within machinic
assemblages; it is not impossible to make a radical break between
regimes of signs and their objects. Even when linguistics claims to
confine itself to what is explicit and to make no presuppositions about
language, it is still in the sphere of a discourse implying particular
modes of assemblage and types of social power. Chomsky's
grammaticality, the categorical S symbol that dominates every sentence,
is more fundamentally a marker of power than a syntactic marker: you
will construct grammatically correct sentences, you will divide each
statement into a noun phrase and a verb phrase (first dichotomy...).
Our criticism of these linguistic models is not that they are too
abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not abstract enough, that
they do not reach the abstract machine that connects a language to the
semantic and pragmatic contents of statements, to collective
assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropolitics of then social
field. A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic
chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts,
sciences, and social struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber
agglomerating very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but also
perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no language in
itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a throng of
dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized languages. There is no ideal
speaker-listener, any more than there is a homogeneous linguistic
community. [...]
3) 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 as subject or object, natural
or spiritual reality, image and world. Multiplicities are rhizomatic,
and expose arborescent
pseudomultiplicities for what they are. There is no unity to serve as a
pivot in the object, or to divide in the subject. There is not even the
unity to abort in the object or 'return' in the subject. A multiplicity
has neither subject nor object, only determinations, magnitudes, and
dimensions that cannot increase in number without the multiplicity
changing in nature (the laws of combination therefore increase in
number as the multiplicity grows). Puppet strings, as a rhizome or
multiplicity, are tied not to the supposed will of an artist or
puppeteer but to a multiplicity of nerve fibres, which form another
puppet in other dimensions connected to the first: 'Call the strings or
rods that move the puppet the weave. It might be objected that its
multiplicity resides in the person of the actor, who projects it into
the text. Granted; but the actor's nerve fibres in turn form a weave.
And they fall through the grey matter, the grid, into the
undifferentiated ... The interplay approximates the pure activity of
weavers attributed in myth to the Fates or Norns.' An assemblage is
precisely this increase in the dimensions of a multiplicity that
necessarily changes in nature as it expands its connections. There are
no points or positions in a rhizome, such as those found in a
structure, tree, or root. There are only lines. When Glenn Gould speeds
up the performance of a piece, he is not just displaying virtuosity, he
is transforming the musical
points into lines, he is making the whole piece proliferate.
The number is no longer a universal concept measuring elements
according to their emplacement in a given dimension, but has itself
become a multiplicity that varies according to the dimensions
considered (the primacy of the domain over a complex of numbers
attached to that domain). We do not have units (unités) of measure,
only multiplicities or varieties of measurement. The notion of unity
(unité) appears only when there is a power takeover in the multiplicity
by the signifier or a corresponding subjectification proceeding. This
is the case for a pivot-unity forming the basis for a set of biunivocal
relationships between objective elements or points, or for the One that
divides following the law of a binary logic of differentiation in the
subject. Unity always operates in an empty dimension supplementary to
that of the system considered (overcoding).
The point is that a rhizome or multiplicity never allows itself to be
overcoded, never has available a supplementary dimension over and above
its number of lines, that is, over and above the multiplicity of
numbers attached to those lines. All multiplicities are flat, in the
sense that they fill or occupy all of their dimensions: we will
therefore speak of a plane of consistency of multiplicities, even
though the dimensions of this 'plane' increase with the number of
connections that are made on it. Multiplicities are defined by the
outside: by the abstract line, the line of flight or
deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and
connect with other multiplicities. The plane of consistency (grid) is
the outside of all multiplicities. The line of flight marks: the
reality of a finite number of dimensions that the multiplicity
effectively fills; the impossibility of a supplementary dimension,
unless the multiplicity is transformed by the line of flight; the
possibility and necessity of flattening all of the multiplicities on a
single plane of consistency or exteriority regardless of their number
of dimensions. The ideal for a book would be to lay everything out on a
plane of exteriority of this kind, on a single page, the same sheet:
lived events, historical determinations, concepts, individuals, groups,
social formations. Kleist invented a writing of this type, a broken
chain of affects and variable speeds, with accelerations and
transformations, always in a relation with the outside Open rings. His
texts, therefore, are opposed in every way to the classical or romantic
book constituted by the inferiority of a substance or subject. The war
machine-book against the State apparatus-book. Flat multiplicities of n
dimensions are asignifying and asubjecùve. They are designated by
indefinite articles, or rather by partitives (some couchgrass, some of
a rhizome...).
4) Principle of asignifying rupture: against the
oversigmfying breaks separating structures or cutting across a single
structure. A rhizome may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but it
will start up again on one of its old lines or on new lines. You can
never get rid of ants because they form an animal rhizome that can
rebound time and again after most of it has been destroyed. Every
rhizome contains lines of segmentanty according to which it is
stratified, territorialized, organized, signified, attributed, etc., as
well as lines of deterritorialization down which it constantly flees.
There is a rupture in the rhizome whenever segmentary lines explode
into a line of flight, but the line of flight is part of the rhizome.
These lines always tie back to one another. That is why one can never
posit a dualism or a dichotomy, even in the rudimentary form of the
good and the bad You may make a rupture, draw a line of flight, yet
there is still a danger that you will re-encounter organizations that
restratify everything, formations that restore power to a signifier,
attributions that reconstitute a subject - anything you like, from
Oedipal resurgences to fascist concretions^Groups and individuals
contain microfascisms just waiting to crystallize. Yes, couchgrass is
also a rhizome. Good and bad are only the products of an active and
temporary selection, which must be renewed
How could movements of deterritorialization and processes of
reterritorialization not be relative, always connected, caught up in
one another? The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a
tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on that image. The
wasp is nevertheless deterritorialized, becoming a piece in the
orchid's reproductive apparatus. But it reterritorializes the orchid by
transporting its pollen. Wasp and orchid, as heterogeneous elements,
form a rhizome. It could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp,
reproducing the image in a signifying fashion (mimesis, mimicry, lure,
etc.). But this is true only on the level of the strata -- a
parallelism between two strata such that a plant organization on one
imitates an animal organization on the other. At the same time,
something else entirely is going on: not imitation at all but a capture
of code, surplus value of code, an increase in valence, a veritable
becoming, a becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the
wasp. Each of these becomings brings about the deterritorialization of
one term and the reterritorialization of the other; the two becomings
interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the
deterritorialization ever further. There is neither imitation nor
resemblance, only an exploding of two heterogeneous series on the line
of flight composed by a common rhizome that can no longer be attributed
to or subjugated by anything signifying. Remy Chauvin expresses it
will: "the APARALLEL EVOLUTION of two beings that have absolutely
nothing to do with each other." More generally, evolutionary schemas
may be forced to abandon the old model of the tree and descent. Under
certain conditions, a virus can connect to germ cells and transmit
itself as the cellular gene of a complex species; moreover, it can take
flight, move into the cells of an entirely different species, but not
without bringing with it "genetic information" from the first host (for
example, Benveniste and Todaro's current research on a type C virus,
with its double connection to baboon DNA and the DNA of certain
domestic cats). Evolutionary schemas would no longer follow models of
arborescent descent going from the least to the most differentiated,
but instead a rhizome operating immediately in the heterogeneous and
jumping from one already differentiated line to another. Once again,
there is APARALLEL EVOLUTION, of the baboon and the cat; it is obvious
that they are not models or copies of the other (a becoming-baboon in
the cat does not mean the cat "plays" baboon). We form a rhizome with
our viruses, or rather our viruses cause us to form a rhizome with
other animals. As Francois Jacob says, transfers of genetic material by
viruses or through other procedures, fusions of cells originating in
different species, have results analogous to those of "the abominable
couplings dear to antiquity and the Middle Ages." Transversal
communications between different lines scramble the genealogical trees.
Always look for the molecular, or even submolecular, particle with
which we are allied. We evolve and die more from our polymorphous and
rhizomatic flus than from hereditary diseases, or diseases that have
their own line of descent. The rhizome is an anti-genealogy.
The same applies to the book and the world: contrary to a deeply rooted
belief, the book is not an image of the world. It forms a rhizome with
the world, there is an aparallel evolution of the book and the world;
the book assures the deterritorialization of the world, but the world
effects a reterritorialization of the book, which in turn
deterritorializes itself in the world (if its capable, if it can).
Mimicry is a very bad concept, since it relies on binary logic to
describe phenomena of an entirely different nature. The crocodile does
not reproduce a tree trunk, any more than the chameleon reproduces the
colors of its surroundings. The Pink Panther imitates nothing, it
reproduces nothing, it paints the world its color, pink on pink; this
is its becoming-world, carried out in such a way that it becomes
imperceptible itself, asignifying, makes its rupture, its own line of
flight, follows its "aparallel evolution" through to the end. The
wisdom of the plants: even with something else -- with the wind, an
animal, human beings (and there is also an aspect under which animals
themselves form rhizomes, as do people, etc.). "Drunkenness as a
triumphant irruption of the plant in us." Always follow the rhizome by
rupture; lengthen, prolong, and relay the line of flight; make it vary,
until you have produced the most abstract and tortuous of lines of N
dimensions and broken directions. Conjugate deterritorialized flows.
Follow the plants: you start by delimiting a first line consisting of
circles of convergence around successive singularities; then you see
whether inside that line new circles of convergence establish
themselves, with new points located outside the limits and in other
directions.
Write, form a rhizome, increase your territory by deterritorialization,
extend the line of flight to the point where it becomes an abstract
machine covering the entire plane of consistency. "Go first to your old
plant and watch carefully the watercourse made by the rain. By now the
rain must have carried the seeds far away. Watch the crevices made by
the runoff, and from them determine the direction of the flow. Then
find the plant that is growing at the farthest point from your plant.
All the devil's weed plants that are growing in between are yours.
Later...you can extend the size of your territory by following the
watercourse from each point along the way."
Music has always sent out lines of flight, like so many
"transformational multiplicities," even overturning the very codes that
structure or arborify it; that is why musical form, right down to its
ruptures and proliferations is comparable to a weed, a rhizome.
5 and 6. Principle of cartography and decalcomania: a
rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model. It is a
stranger to any idea of genetic axis or deep structure. A genetic axis
is like an objective pivotal unity upon which successive stages are
organized; a deep structure is more like a base sequence that can be
broken down into immediate constituents, while the unity of the product
passes into another, transformational and subjective, dimension. This
does not constitute a departure from the representative model of the
tree, or root -- pivotal taproot or fascicles (for example, Chomsky's
"tree" is associated with a base sequence and represents the process of
its own generation in terms of binary logic). A variation on the oldest
form of thought. It is our view that genetic axis and profound
structure are above all infinitely reproducible principles of TRACING.
All of tree logic is logic of tracing and reproduction. In linguistics
as in psychoanalysis, its object is an unconscious that is itself
representative, crystallized into codified complexes, laid out along a
genetic axis and distributed within a syntagmatic structure. Its goal
is to describe a de facto state, to maintain balance in inter-subjective
relations, or to explore an unconscious that is already there form the
start, lurking in the dark recesses of memory and language. It consists
of tracing, on the basis of an overcoding structure or supporting axis,
something that comes ready-made. The tree articulates and hierarchizes
tracings; tracings are like the leaves of a tree.
The rhizome is altogether different, a MAP AND NOT A TRACING. Make a
map, not a tracing. The orchid does not reproduce the tracing of the
wasp; it forms a map with the wasp, in a rhizome. What distinguishes
the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented toward an
experimentation in contact with the real. The map does not reproduce an
unconscious closed contact with the real. The map does not reproduce an
unconscious closed in upon itself; it constructs the unconscious. It
fosters connections between fields, the removal of blockages on bodies
without organs, the maximum opening of bodies without organs onto a
plane of consistency. It is itself a part of the rhizome. The map is
open and connectible in all of is dimensions; it is detachable,
reversible, susceptible to constant modification. It can be torn,
reversed, adapted to any kind of mounting, reworked by an individual,
group, or social formation. It can be drawn on a wall, conceived of as
a work of art, constructed as a political action or as a meditation.
Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the rhizome is
that it always has multiple entryways; in this sense, the burrow is an
animal rhizome, and sometimes maintains a clear distinction between the
line of flight as passageway and storage or living strata (cf. the
muskrat). A map has multiple entryways, as opposed to the tracing,
which always comes back "to the same." The map has to do with
performance, whereas the tracing always involves an alleged
"competence."
Unlike psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic competence (which confines every
desire and statement to a genetic axis or overcoding structure, and
makes infinite, monotonous tracings of the stages on that axis or the
constituents of that structure), schizoanalysis rejects any idea of
pretraced destiny, whatever name is given to it -- divine, anagogic,
historical, economic, structural, hereditary, or syntagmatic... (translation by Brian Massumi).
Attachment: