rhizome "A rose is a rose is a rose ..."
to critical approximation of the rhizome
If you look in the dictionary under "rhizome" to, one finds the following definition: "rhizome
s ,-s,-e: root (Earthborn, which usually has storage function; bot) ".
1977 designed Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in a foreword that concept in a different manner: a rhizome should be the name for a system that, without any organization or hierarchy auskommt; ein Gegenbegriff zu Dichotomie und dem Baum des Wissens, der jedem Element nur eine einzige Ebene zuordnet, darstellen. Deleuze und Guattari kritisierten bestehende Ordnungssysteme ob ihrer Engstirnigkeit bezüglich Veränderungs- und Verschiebungspotenzialität von Begrifflichkeiten. Kreuzungen und Überschneidungen würden in einem streng hierarchischen System keinen Platz finden und daher sei es wichtig diese Prinzipien bekannter Ordnungen zu hinterfragen, allein schon, weil die Diktatur selbst sich auf ein hierarchisches System stütze und es diese drohende politische Gefahr grundsätzlich auszuschließen gilt.
„Ein Rhizom kann an jeder beliebigen Stelle gebrochen und zerstört werden, es wuchert entlang his own or other lines further. "(Deleuze and Guattari)
The order in a rhizome is thus marked by diversity rather than unity and not subject to power structures. Any point can and must be connected to each other. There is no family, no beginning, no end and no structure, but only lines of communication.
Richard Barbrook presents in a 80-page essay's critique of Deleuze and Guattari regard the concept of the rhizome dar. The short version is titled, "The Holy Fools" (subtitle: "Deleuze, Guattari and the high-tech gift economy "). Certainly, this text is a big strike against the two of him as strange titled philosophers as such ("the belief in the overthrow of the capitalist system no longer realistic"), their utopian world view ("A revolutionary dream time for the Imagination"), its unreflective political opinion ("Although these two philosophers, their lives were long said Linke, support many of their contemporary followers a form of aristocratic anarchism, which is similar to California's Neo-Liberalism in an uncanny way. ") and at least as naive followers (" Trapped in their religious rules, the student of Deleuze and Guattari do not even to grasp why the growth of the network really such a subversive phenomenon is "). Some interesting claims are identified below. Barbrook claimed by the what he called" techno nomads ", ie the Deleuzeguattarianern would use concept of the rhizome to describe cyberspace as an open, spontaneous and horizontal network, for example, cybersex romanticize. For details, it would save the curious reader, however. The representatives of the rhizome theory formed according Barbrook a subculture in the field of networks and of network. He also refers in the same breath on a "digital revolution", "computer technology, techno, bizarre science, esoteric belief systems, illegal chemicals and cyberpunk novels. Therefore, one must ask whether his criticism of the lack of objectivity Deleuze and Guattari it may expose itself.
subordinated to the concept of the rhizome it to have been ultimately misguided in its use, and title of a modern "unorganized structure of the New York art scene cyber" has become his. The rhizome that is a buzzword? Barbrook threw at the beginning of his text the two "anarcho-communists", also known as Deleuze and Guattari, also known to have politicized "D & G" before the term and therefore deprived him of conviction to have. Later, he chalks but their representatives to the term to de-politicize today and the original meaning of void Purposes (as legitimation for the formation of weak-minded subculture on the Internet) to abuse.
to clarify the concept as such with all this warmly enough.
According to Jörg Seidel, who was once also, though much more detailed and specific with the "phenomenon rhizome", discussed the concept as such, first of all a word invention and was only in the detached use outside of the work of Deleuze and Guattari vague and ambiguous. He reiterated the statements of Deleuze and Guattari the rhizome as "ontological category that describes the structure of being, of the world." Deleuze and Guattari claimed Multiplicities would be , in thought and action designed, it was not enough to speak out about it. One must make the multiplicities and be . Seidel explained that this meant that one had the number of importers in the language and these break down as a unit, then restructure the language and deconstruct. That meant a lot to focus attention on, bring it frequently discussed. It would be insufficient to address unique, you must light it varied and always something to omit the other hand, a word, a phrase, so it may never be completed, try to avoid the whole thing. If this were to prevent the whole, while Ensure the integrity that would be a rhizome. Two principles were followed when the rhizome: connection and the heterogeneity, already referred to Deleuze and Guattari. These need to be together and thought the same, but are not united with each other or mixed, that is poured into a mass, but remain as multiples side by side. Also the principle deleuzeguattarianisch asignifikante Seidel explained to his readers: rhizomes and can be broken, because the rhizome breaks into other compounds and destroyed it breaks under certain circumstances. This property is perfect bezugslos possible to speak of why Asignifikanz.
In support of his Argumentation führt Seidel Baudrillard an, dessen Kritik an Deleuze und Guattari bereits ein Jahr nach der Veröffentlichung des Werkes über das Rhizom erschien: Er warf den beiden vor, nach Beendigung der teleologischen Macht eine neue Struktur entworfen und wieder eingeführt zu haben. Also exakt das Gegenteil von dem, was Deleuze und Guattari eigentlich vor hatten. Außerdem bemängelte Baudrillard die „merkwürdige Komplizenschaft mit der Kybernetik“. Er stellt die Vorstellung des Rhizoms als zu feingliedrig dar und sagt: „Heutzutage gilt es als chick und revolutionär sich im Molekularen herumzutreiben.“ und genau aus diesem Grund sollte man dem Rhizom mit misstrauen begegnen.
Sein Plädoyer for the concept of the rhizome derived Seidel one with the following citation:
"That is a rhizome something that can not mean to try to find all rhizomatic components, because of course contains, on the one hand, the idea of the rhizome a certain ideal type share - the Rattenbau example, is strictly certainly seen no (pure) Rhizome - on the other hand, includes any rhizome and tree and root structures, even structures beyond the indicated characteristics, and is thus more than a rhizome, just as there is less ".
It would be possible, according to Seidel rhizome structure phenomena, but it is unnecessary, because the rhizome self-structured (in that it is structured at all) there, because that's the will and the perception of the recipient to appeal. That any point with each other must be connected Jörg Seidel sums not as utopian pessimism, but sees this totalitarian borders of the draft and thus a restriction that is in his view, but considered as positive because it is anything but ideological and therefore impractical understand. The form is not complete and to grow wild, the system is feasible in the representation by means of the principle of the break to wholeness, beauty, subtleties to destroy mostly when they are most beautiful, because according to Seidel are expected in the rhizome will do everything to be disappointed:
"The concept of a botanical lust is the cause, where he is proliferating as a synonym for. The plant grows luxuriantly horny, hard drives, twists wildly overgrown, - it makes the rhizome as: "A rose is a rose is a rose ..."."
Whether we use our language in botanical terms for phenomena that we otherwise be difficult to explain, because they win with this "natural argument convincing and that has to do this in relation to the phenomenon of Internet, I would like to leave the next hack, because I could only guess anstellen. Interessant scheint mir doch, dass von dem Rhizom offensichtlich doch so große Faszination ausgeht, dass es sich immerhin auch für die oben genannten Autoren lohnt darüber wahnwitzige Kritiken zu schreiben. Gilles Deleuze und Felix Guattari versuchten mit der Entwicklung des Rhizoms abzukommen von der Vorstellung alles sinnvoll und eindeutig einzuordnen, weg von der Sucht nach konkreten Definitionen und Systematisierung wo es nur geht. Umso wichtiger erscheint es mir auch ihre Kritiker zu Wort kommen zu lassen, denn sie heben das deleuzeguattarianische Konzept auf andere Ebenen, sie erkennen andere, widersprüchliche Bedeutungsmuster und Verbindungslinien, sie formulieren es um und schaffen und sind in diesem Sinn eben genau das, was ein Rhizom should be: indefinable.
Sources:
Barbrook, Richard: "The Holy Fool" http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6344/1.html (14/01/2011)
The great dictionary, foreign words, Volume 5, 2 Edition, Mannheim, 1971
Seidel, Jörg: "rhizome" http://seidel.jaiden.de/rhizom.php (14/01/2011)
