<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2>It is definitely from Deleuze and
Guattari, though not just Anti-Oedipus. It also figures into most of their
theory of schizoanalysis, particularly in Thousand Plateaus. As for why
they choose rhizome, it is, as in this sentence, supposed to be opposed to the
hierarchy of the "arborescent" (tree-like, i.e. deep roots, towering
structure). Maybe it's just because they thought the term "Rhizomatic"
sounds cool. You have to admit, as academic terms go, there are some very
nice consonants working together in that one. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2>I suspect someone knows of where they
might have defended this choice of term or why biological metaphors were the
starting point. And maybe they can answer this as
well: D&G suggest the rhizomatic as a strategy
for challenging the supposedly dominant tree-like power, but
when Hardt and Negri use it, they are basically talking about capital
working this way as well. Considering the predominance of corporate
conglomerates, I don't understand this use: and since the latter also pose the
multitude as a sort of rhizomatic movement, how do they square even their
own claim with the original meaning: if the rhizomatic is effective
because power is arborescent, how is it still effective if power and capital are
also rhizomatic? Makes the "snake-oil" thesis seem more
convincing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2>-s</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica LT" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=zachary.levenson@gmail.com
href="mailto:zachary.levenson@gmail.com">Zachary Levenson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org
href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 07, 2005 7:10
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [lbo-talk] Rhizomatic?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Is anyone familiar with this term? I encountered it in reading
Hardt and Negri's 'Empire':<BR><BR>"The constitution of a global market
organized along a disciplinary model is traversed by tensions that open
mobility in every direction; it is a transversal mobility that is rhizomatic
rather than arborescent" (253).<BR><BR>I believe it comes from Deleuze and
Guattari's 'Anti-Oedipus,' but I am not clear as to what it entails, i.e., why
they select rhizome as metaphor rather than any other omni-directional
mobility. Any theory-heads on list?<BR>__________________<BR><B>Zachary
Levenson</B><BR>Radiation Effects Research Foundation<BR>Hiroshima
Laboratory<BR>5-2 Hijiyama Park, Minami-ku<BR>Hiroshima City, 732-0815
Japan<BR><BR>levenson@rerf.or.jp<BR>Zachary.Levenson@gmail.com<BR>http://rebenson.blogspot.com<BR><BR><B>"Latter-day
capitalism. Like it or not, it's the society we live in. Even the standard of
right and wrong has been subdivided, made sophisticated. Within good, there's
fashionable good and unfashionable good, there's formal and then there's
casual; there's hip, there's cool, there's trendy, there's snobbish. Mix 'n'
match. Like pulling on a Missoni sweater over Trussardi slacks and Pollini
shoes, you can now enjoy hybrid styles of morality. It's the way of the
world--philosophy starting to look more and more like business
administration."<BR>~Haruki Murakami, <I>Dance Dance Dance</I></B>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>