Rhizome

In place of the arborescent systems of modernity, Deleuze and Guattari rhizomic models. Herman Rapaport explains ( The Literary Theory Toolkit: A Compendium of Concepts and Methods ): “Traditionally, organic metaphors were used to suggest the coherence and closure of forms, since life forms are capable of being looked at as autonomous systems that have a steady state and are self-sufficient, given an environment that supports their needs in terms of light, temperature, food, and shelter.” Deleuze and Guattari object becaus, “aborescent systems . . . were hierarchical systems with centers of significance and subjectification, central automata like organized memories.”

By contrast, the rhizome refers to “acentered systems, finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, [and in which] the stems of channels do not preexist, and all individuals are interchangeable, defined only by their state at a given moment – such that the local operations are coordinated and the final, global result synchronized without a central agency.” More fully,

“Structurally, in the rhizome every point connects with every other point; its particular traits are not typified by sameness; it mobilizes ‘regimes of signs’ and even nonsigns; it is neither one nor many . . . . Anti-Aristotelian, the rhizome has no beginning and end, but is all middle. ‘It constitutes linear multiplicities with n dimensions having neither subject nor object, which can be laid out on a plane of consistency, and from which the One is always subtracted (n – 1).’ . . . ‘unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, with binary relations between the points and biunivocal relationships between the positions, the rhizome is made only of lines: lines of segmentality and stratification as its dimensions, and the line of flight or deterritorialization as the maximum dimension after which the multiplicity undergoes metamorphosis, changes its nature.’ Rhizomes, moreover, are antigenealogical and have a short term memory or ‘antimemory,’ and like the biological entity, the rhizome of Deleuze and Guattari ‘[is] operated by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots.’ Whereas a tree is a thing that has being, the rhizome is all manner of becoming.”

Deleuze and Guattari use rhizomatics in support of a radical philosophical and political program, and others (Hardt and Negri) have followed suit. Even if we don’t follow their conclusions, there must be something to rhizomic systems, since they clearly appear in creation alongside aborescent systems and of course many others. We consume carrots and potatoes as well as apples and cherries. Why not organize philosophy rhizomically? And there might be something in this for theology specifically. Jesus is, after all, the rizos of David (Revelation 22:16). Here’s an idea for a paper, perhaps a thesis: Examine the rhizomic patterns of the Bible in the light of Deleuze, Guattari, and the rest who have picked up their guiding metaphors.