Rhizomes - I wish I had a more clever title.

Rhizomes

When I opened up the Deleuze writing, for a second I thought I mistakenly downloaded a PDF on botany. I read on, and realized that I could only be so lucky...

I kid.

Rhizomes versus Tree

Deleuze begins this article by discussing the nature in which discourse was originally examined comparing the structural method to that of a tree (the genealogical approach). We have item Z (film, speech, art, etc.) and we trace back to item A, its origin. Along the way, we make stops from Y to B, and so on and so on. It’s a simple narrative form- beginning, middle, end or in this case the tree metaphor- leaf, branch, trunk, root.

Deleuze takes issue with simplistic, rigid method. Instead, he offers the alternative method of approaching discourse- the rhizome. 

Deluze begins with a lesson in ginger and couch grass, “A rhizome as a subterranean stem is absolutely different from roots and radicles.” (29) The botany lesson quickly proves its validity and essential to study of this method. The examples of tubers and bulbs illustrate the idea that a rhizome acts as a singular point, a node, from which a variety of roots and shoots arise. The rhizome can also be broken down into its individual pieces, which then can be used to grow new plants.

Deleuze breaks down the characteristics of the Rhizomes into six categories. (With 1&2 and 5&6 being lumped together.)

1 and 2: Principles of connection and heterogeneity

“Any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be.” (29)

In this section, Deleuze focuses his argument to the field of linguistics. 

Linguistics seeks to define language in binary terms, as a friend of mine in the field (a doctoral candidate at Iowa) put it, “linguistics tries to establish "right" and "wrong" language. It does this by mapping out speech and drawing boundaries between dialects (through things like morphology, syntax and phonology).” The linguists, like Chomsky, are drawing these lines and creating these hierarchies and genealogies to describe it.

Deleuze rejects this entire system, charging that it is too concrete, too rigid “Our criticism of these linguistic models is not that they are too abstract but, on the contrary, they are not abstract enough...” (30) Deleuze points out that the linguists are almost far sighted, seeing individual trees, but missing the forest at large. While linguistics focus on the words- how they’re constructed, the phrases they create, and their sounds- they miss the surrounding components like the “perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive.” (30)

Essentially, Deleuze argues that the idea of attempting to place a rigid structure onto the study of words is flawed. There is no universal language, or "mother tongue", only a dominant group with political roots and stems that spreads from a central node. The language is never exclusive (and therefore cannot be looked at isolated in a bubble), it’s a part of bigger system.

3: Principle of Multiplicity

Multiplicity deals with rhizomes and the importance of their inter-connectivity. We take the multiple, the node, and recognize that it does not stand-alone. Rather, each multiple must be directly tied to surrounding concepts and ideas.

Deleuze references psuedomultiplicities, these are the unconnected or weakly connected bits of discourse that crumble upon close inspection. (It’s kind of like trying to pick up a wet clump of sand. It seems viable, but quickly disintegrates.)

The way I consider multiplicity is the raster image:

The raster image (think bitmaps, jpegs, photoshop files, MS Paint, etc.) creates its complete picture by combining many little pixels (or to use a Deleuze term- multiples,) to create an image. Each pixel is its own entity- they can be differentiated by hue, saturation, brightness, darkness, and so on and so forth. 

Now, consider a high-resolution image (on a digital camera or via painting or image creation in Photoshop.): it’s jam packed with a lot of unique pixels, which are a part of this large mosaic that creates an image. The greater number of unique and varied pixels that are connected, the higher quality the photo from a clarity, contrast, and color reproduction standpoint.

A low-resolution photo, like the insert on the flower shot above, does not have as many pixels available to it. It's connections are flimsy and weak. As the pixels get larger their bonds weaken. There is less variation, less diversity. Upon manipulation, the low-resolution photo will fall apart, become distorted and lose all meaning- it seems like an excellent example of the pseudomultiplicity.

4.Principle of asignifying rupture

"A rhizome may be broken, shattered at any given spot, but it will start up again on its old lines or on a new line...Every rhizome contains lines of segmentarity according to which it is stratified, territorialized, organized, signified, attributed, etc., as well as lines of deterritorialization down which it constantly flees. " (30)

The asignifying rupture is what gives fluidity to the rhizome. Think of it as something along the lines of an oil spill. The oil pools outward from its source, creates paths, separates, and diverges. It's a free form that moves entirely in a natural, smooth motion.

Another example of the asignifying rupture came with the advent digital editing for film and video.

In film based editing, great care had to be taken and large amounts of consideration had to be placed on each and every cut entered into the film. The physical film footage (as in a process negative) was cut and spliced back together to take raw footage from a mass of individual shots and convert it into a coherent narrative piece. This was known as destructive editing because while every cut contributed to the completion of the film it also destroyed a small bit of it as well.

Digital editing changed all of this by introducing a system that was known as non-linear and non-destructive. This meant that all of the footage (regardless of whether it was captured on film, shot digitally, etc.) could be edited over and over again with causing destruction to original material- with even allowing for different versions of the film to be saved at a time. Shots, scenes, sequences could all be lifted, moved and replaced at the will of the filmmaker. Each new cut and new tweak unlocking new meaning in the film and allowing the take chances and be able to dig for new ideas and thoughts to share.

The technological advancement turned film from finite to infinite, from dead artifact to living organism, from structure to rhizome.

Deleuze uses the heterogeneous relationship of the orchid and the wasp to illustrate deterritorialization and reterritorialization.

The orchid deterritorializes itself by making itself appear to be a female wasp, "tracing the wasp" (32) The wasp in turn reterritorializes itself on to the orchid's image of a female, which begets the deterritorialization of the wasp as a piece of the orchids reproductive puzzle and that ultimately leads to the reterritorialization of the orchid when the hornet transports the pollen for the Orchid.

It's very much like a dance, which when seen in action (in the YouTube video above) is even further illustrative. A brilliant visual representation of the rhizome overlapping itself and weaving in and out of its own path, two processes- the desire to mate on the part of the wasp and the desire to propagate on the part of the orchid- overlap and intersect to a degree where there is no signifier, just the dance.

5 and 6: Principle of Cartography and Decalomania

"A rhizome is not amenable to any structural or generative model... The rhizome is altogether different a map not a tracing."(35)

The tracing is built on the "use of the genetic axis and a profound structure."(35) What exactly does he mean by that? Tracing, in the sense of its relationship to rhizomes, is incredibly literal. When we trace, we draw the lines from point to point, it seems analogous to a coloring book or a maze- it is more primitive and simplistic. You simply start at a given point and work your way back to some sort of point of origin. It's matter of fact.

A map, on the other hand, represents something all together different according to Deleuze. It's a part of the rhizome. The map itself is almost like a living organism. “It is itself a part of the rhizome. The map is open and connectible in all of its 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 always has multiple entryways” (35)

And of course, whenever I hear living map, I'm always reminded of this.

Control Societies (Empire and Deleuze)

Deleuze kicks off this piece with a shout out to his boy Foucault with a discussion of the demise of the "disciplinary society" and the rise of the "control societies."

According to Deleuze (via Foucault), disciplinary societies are usually associated with the eighteenth and nineteenth century, reaching its "apogee at the beginning of the twentieth century." (Deleuze, 177) They operate by organizing "major sites of confinement- family, school, the barracks, the factory, the hospital from time to time, and maybe prison, the model site of confinement." (Deleuze, 177)

The control society is a more tailored approach to the individual oppression than standardized approach of a disciplinary society.


So, the confinement society worked off a program of analogical molds, meaning there's a shared language/experience and despite the confinement, we were not separated. We can still relate from person to person.

 "The behaviors of social integration and exclusion proper to rule are thus increasingly interiorized within the subjects themselves." (Empire, 23)


In the society of control, on the other hand there has been a shift and push to eliminate that bond that people share in their suffering. The term digital modulation refers to each person's experience dealing with control. It is just varied enough that the individual remains alienated from his fellow sufferer.


The new order of the control society, has also created a shift from the factory to the business. This represents an even further push towards the individual control and suffering. Factories brought individuals together to work as a part of a greater good type scenario, with people banding together to achieve a common goal. 


Now, businesses have implemented "friendly competitions" (Deleuze, 179) to pit co-worker against co-worker in order to maximize productivity and drive a wedge between each other and dividing each within themselves. So, just know that the next time you go to Walgreens and they offer you a candy bar that's on sale at the register, you're promoting the new order control society machine. :)


These friendly competitions have spilled over into education as well. Schools and the governmental funding agencies behind them have adopted a "may the best everyman for himself win" policy.


On a University level, among faculty and students, the capitalistic re-imagining of academia has left people who should be friends and colleagues often pitted against each other for scholarship and grant moneys, tenure track positions, and entrance into prestigious programs, fellowships, etc. It's sort of cut throat out there right now and while it may promote more productivity at what cost is the trade off? 


On a lower level, from High Schools down through Grade School, states have implemented a battery of standardized tests- in order to assure that the student body is fit to graduate and proceed on to higher education or join the workforce and that the teachers are qualified enough to retain their jobs. 


My sister is a 7th grade English teacher near Toledo, OH. By the year students reach her classroom, they will be preparing to take their fifth round of the Ohio Achievement Assessment not to mention having to also pass the state's graduation test as well as taking SAT and ACT tests to get into undergraduate programs. 


While these standardized test do help to create a good little group of motivated, competitive children, or occasionally a defeatist group in poorer/underfunded areas, they serve even better as an excellent example of turning education into a business.

"In disciplinary societies, you start over again and again... while control societies you never finish anything." (179) 

Orson Welles' The Trial 1962 Based on the work of Kafka. Apparent Acquittal and Endless Postponement

  

Society of Control is a variation on the panopticon. "Power becomes entirely bio political, the whole social body is comprised by power's machine and developed in its virtuality. This relationship is open, qualitative, and affective." (Empire, 24)

"Life has now become... an object of power." (Foucault)

"Biopower extends well outside the sites of social instituations through flexible and fluctuating networks." (Empire, 23)

  

Lastly, in a control society the key that unlocks the door is no longer a signature, but a password. (I feel like you could extend this to also include things like usernames, avatars, the general online identity at large as well). 

Individuals are reduced to 'dividuals' (divided selves), masses are simply data, samples, markets, or banks. 

Even places where you shop, rent movies, or watch tv want to know more and more about, with the express idea of breaking you down into your data like some sort of post modern scrap heap.

The concept of the dividual also puts me in mind of places like Bank of America and Wells Fargo that charge you fees for you using the debit card that they gave you to access your money that you gave them. 

And on that depressing note let's go to the questions:

1. Locate and describe the society of control in your daily life.

2. How does the concept of rhizome function in light of structuralism and post structuralism?

3. Who would win in a bar fight Deleuze or Baudillard? 

4. Compare and contrast the theory of Empire with Rhizomes.