Rhizome@Internet

using the Internet as an example of Deleuze and Guattari's "Rhizome"

Submitted by Robin B. Hamman
MA Sociology Scheme
University of Essex
May 28, 1996

Cybersociology Magazine

This paper is in response to the essay question: Can the Internet be used as an example of the "Rhizome" from Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia ?

I have been studying sociology and other related disciplines for many years now and I have yet to pick up a book on theory that is accessible and gets to the point without putting the reader through hours of hair pulling and swearing. I felt the same way when I first picked up Delueze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.. As I read through it the first time I kept thinking that it was all meaningless highbrow literature for those who like to have such things on their bookshelf. But certainly it must have a point, otherwise it would not have been on the reading lists for at least two of the courses I have taken. After rereading A Thousand Plateaus , I decided that it might be a worthwhile task to concentrate on one theory in the book, the rhizome, and try to apply it to something just so that I could see if it worked. The rhizome, according to Moulthrop, is the "concept of social order defined by active transversal or encounter rather than objectification... Figures for this order include the ocean of the navigator or the desert of the nomad." (Moulthrop, 301) Another figure, or example of the rhizome, is the Internet. What follows is my attempt to use the Internet as a real world example Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome.

In A Thousand Plateaus : Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Deleuze and Guattari describe the characteristics of their concept of the rhizome. These principles are presented briefly here so that the reader of this paper can get a sense of the whole theory before we engage in the task of applying each principle to the Internet. The first two principles of the rhizome are the "principles of connection and heterogenity." These two principles require that any point of a rhizome system can be connected to any other point. In other words, the rhizome is not hierarchical in structure. It is the anti-hierarchical: no point must come before another, no specific point must be connected to another point, but all points are and must be connected. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 7) The third principle of the rhizome is that of "multiplicity". The best way to understand this principle of the rhizome is by looking at the actions of a puppet and it's master. After deconstruction we can see that it is not the will of the puppeteer that controls the actions of the puppet, it is a "multiplicity of nerve fibers." The puppeteer is him or herself a puppet of this multiplicity. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) It is not the points of contact between the strings and the puppet or the point of contact between the hands of the puppeteer and the wooden frame to which the strings are attached that are important when thinking rhizomatically, it is the lines between the points that are important. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) The fourth principle of the rhizome is called the "principle of asignifying rupture." According to this principle, the rhizome may be "shattered at a given spot, but will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 9) The fifth and sixth principles of the rhizome are those of "cartography" and "decalcomania". These principles state that the rhizome is not a tracing mechanism, but is a map with multiple entry points. Psychoanalysis, for example, is a representative tracing of the subconscious that exists prior to it's tracing. Tracing is not creating new, it is representing old - following lines that are already there. Mapping, on the other hand, "constructs the unconscious" by orientation "toward an experimentation of contact with the real." That is, maps can exist as themselves without need for anything outside of the map to exist while tracings can only exists as representations. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 12) To summarise the key aspects of the rhizome as described above, Deleuze and Guattari state that, "The rhizome is an accentered, nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizing memory or central automation, defined solely by a circulation of states." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 21)

Deleuze and Guattari, writing at a time when computers were usually stand alone units with no connections to other computers, criticise computer designers for "grant[ing] all power to a memory or central organ." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 16) The central organ I believe they are talking about is the motherboard of the computer which contains all of the RAM and ROM memory chips which physically store what could be described as the mental aspects of the computer. Without the motherboard, no programs could be run and no data could be stored. The reliance on a "central organ" grows even deeper when we look at the hierarchical manner with which an individual computer stores and uses data by first codifying it into 1's and 0's. When Deleuze and Guattari talk about the hierarchical they describe it as being rooted in binary logic. Deleuze and Guattari state that "Binary logic is the spiritual reality of the root-tree ." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 5) Certain binary codes must be loaded onto the computer at start-up while others can be loaded at any time. For example, my Macintosh loads the Macintosh Operating System (OS) first because this is where instructions are for the computer to do other functions. After loading the OS, the computer loads the information needed for the computer to translate 1's and 0's into screen colours. After that, system extensions are loaded such as information that the computer needs to convert binary codes to font for the printer. Everything must be loaded by the computer in a certain order or the computer crashes. In other words, if the hierarchy is disturbed the computer can not go on. In summary, the individual computer is not a rhizomatic system because it relies too much on hierarchy and power is not dispersed but is centrally located. If the hierarchy is broken, the computer ceases to function properly. Furthermore, the individual computer traces predetermined lines and does not create maps. My Macintosh computer, sitting on my desk with no connections to the outside world, is a closed system and is not rhizomatic.

Deleuze and Guattari contrast centred systems, such as the Macintosh on my desk with no (or few) connections to anything else, to acentred systems. My Macintosh may be a hierarchical system on it's own, but the Internet is very close to what Deleuze and Guattari describe above as a rhizomatic system. Rhizomatic systems, according to Deleuze and Guattari, are "finite networks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to any other, the stems or channels do not pre-exist, 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 central agency." (D& G, 17) Let us now compare the early development of the Internet with several key aspects of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic system.

The Internet started as a project of the United States military during the cold war with the Soviet Union. In the 1960's, most major government agencies, defence contractors, and research bodies had isolated computer facilities which they used primarily for research and data storage. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was created within the United States Department of Defence to study ways in which to connect these computers so that data could be transferred in the event of a nuclear attack. If ARPA could find a way for information to be shared and rapidly transferred between these computers, it was thought that the information held by these computers could survive a nuclear attack. As long as at least one of the computers on the ARPA network survived nuclear attack, the data on government and defence computers could and the United States would be able to launch it's missiles in retaliation. (Morrow, 10) In other words, decentralisation like seen in the rhizome, was a key aspect of the early Internet.

At the same time that ARPA was attempting to devise a way to link important computers in the United States, the British and French governments were "experimenting with a means of intercomputer communications called packet switching." (Morrow, 10) Before packet switching, if data was to be transferred from computer A to computer C, a cable had to connect the two in a hierarchical manner. If computer C was not accepting data, the data would not be transmitted. Packet switching allows computers to put data into packets, each with the destination marked on the outside, and to send them over cables to other computers. If computer A uses packet switching, it can send directly to computer C, or it can send a packet to computer B and one to computer C which would then send it on to computer C when it began accepting data again. Computer C would then take the two packets and put them together. According to a computer science expert, "Packet switching does not rely on fixed connections between two computers. Rather messages are contained in packets, which can be routed among computers until they reach their final destination." (Morrow, 10 - 12) Similar to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome, computers on the Internet, using packet switching, send information to any neighbouring computer on the Internet along routes that may or may not have been pre-established. However, when talking of the Internet, there remains some of the language of a hierarchical system. There are destination computers and to access the Internet from my home computer, I must go through an Internet service provider. There is only one computer, one owned by Demon Internet, that presently gives me access to the Internet. Theoretically speaking, I could use other entry points, but it would not be practical to sign up and pay for other access points (America Online or CompuServe for example).

We have seen above that there may be some similarities between the early Internet and Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the rhizome. We have also seen that there may be some problems with using the Internet as a model of a rhizomatic system . There is another level of the Internet that we have yet to look at here. That is the level of social usage. Let us look now to the social usage of the Internet in comparison to the principles of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome as briefly put forth at the beginning of this paper.

Today there are over 45,000 networks and over five million computers connected to the Internet. This number is reportedly growing at about ten percent per month. (Morrow, 4) There are no regulations on who can use the Internet as there were in the early days when it was under the control of ARPA. Any computer, given it has networking capabilities, can go on-line. When using browser software, which is software that displays World Wide Web pages, computer users can connect to any computer on the Internet that they wish to connect to. There are no connections there until a person chooses to make them . This is done by the user typing in an electronic address, often referred to as an "HTTP ", to make a connection to a host computer. Sometimes the connection is made directly between the user's computer and the database at the host computer which contains the desired web page. Other times, the user's computer will connect to a computer different than the so called host computer. This computer will then find a route to the desired host. For example, to see a web page on the University of Illinois computer, a user at John Moores University in Liverpool may connect to a computer at MIT which then connects to a computer in Germany before connecting to the University of Illinois computer. The computer user in Liverpool may or may not know the route that is taken as the route is decided by computers that have measured many possible routes before locating one that is not busy. At some times in the day, when there are many users trying to make connections, routes get blocked or slowed, and delays in obtaining access to information on a remote computer is slowed. It has been demonstrated here that any point on the Internet, that is any computer, may connect with any other point. It does not follow a specific hierarchical path other than when it comes to Internet access. True, Internet access points create a hierarchy, but once on the Internet, there is no hierarchy.

The third principle of the rhizome, which follows the above principles that any point may be connected to any other point in the rhizome and that there be no hierarchy within for a system for it to be rhizomatic, is the principle of multiplicity. In the example used earlier it was stated that it is the "multiplicity of nerve fiber" and not the hands of the puppeteer that control the puppet. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) I see no reason why we cannot say here that the same holds true for the users of the Internet. The computer user's "multiplicity of nerve fiber" controls the computer's connections - it is not the keyboard or the hands on it that does this. There is even a further multiplicity present when using the Internet and that is the multiplicity of light pixels on the computer screen. Another part of this third principle of rhizomes is that there are no points or positions, just lines in a rhizome. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) At first glance, this seems to call into question the suitability of the Internet as an example of a rhizome. Computer users go from web site to web site, using electronic addresses to find and read home pages. It would appear that each move, from computer to computer, is a move from one point to another. I resolve this problem by pointing out that Internet users do not physically go from point to point on the Internet, instead users remain in the same physical spot throughout their time spent browsing. People talk about going to an Internet site, and some speak of having browsed a museum in, let us say Paris, when in reality they have gone nowhere. There are no points to go to that exist beyond the state of "consensual hallucination" that cyberspace is, just lines and connections between web pages that can be followed and created. (Gibson, 1984, p.51)

So far, none of the principles of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome has seriously called into question the suitability of the Internet as an example of a rhizome. Let us look now at the remaining principles of the rhizome and compare those with the Internet. The fourth principle of the rhizome is that it can be shattered at any spot which would cause it to start again on either an old or new line. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 12) It was mentioned earlier that the Internet, as it was first envisioned by the people at ARPA, was designed to withstand a nuclear holocaust. Surely today's Internet could withstand all but a total, world-wide, and sustained war. The Internet, or more correctly the computers on it, can route information around trouble spots. A good example of this is when CompuServe, an on-line service as well as an Internet access provider, denied access to sexually explicit Usenet groups due to pressure from the Bavarian government. Within several hours of denying access to these Usenet groups, CompuServe users figured out a way around the restrictions. All they had to do was log on to CompuServe and connect to a third party host computer that did carry the banned news groups. In other words, CompuServe users whose access to news groups had been "shattered" regained access by creating new links between their computers and the ones that contained the databases where the banned groups were stored. This example of attempts to regulate the Internet can be useful to our discussions of the next principle of rhizomes as well.

The fifth principle of a rhizome is that it is "not amenable to any structural or generative model." The example of CompuServe's attempt to regulate user access to specific news groups is an example of how the Internet is a model of this principle. The structure of the Internet is forever changing and changeable. Attempts to purposely block users from obtaining certain data or to regulate access have been unsuccessful because of this. It appears, at the time of this writing, that further forceful attempts to alter the structure of the Internet will be unsuccessful as well. It is the nonhierarchical structure and dispersed nature of the Internet, as well as the seemingly uncontrollable frontier spirit of Internet users, that help the Internet to live up to this principle of the rhizome.

The last principle of the rhizome as put forth by Deleuze and Guattari is that the rhizome is "a map and not a tracing", and that this map has "multiple entryways." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 12) It has been mentioned earlier that there are many routes, or links, amongst computers on the Internet. These links are sometimes well established while at other times new routes and linkages take place. There are multiple entryways in the sense that, once on the Internet, I can choose whichever Internet site or home page I wish as my entryway. There is no reason why I could not choose to start at the Guinness Home Page when I access the Internet today, and then tomorrow use the University of Essex homepage as my entrypoint. Thus a user on the Internet creates maps by linking pages and moving as a nomad, that is "browsing" purposefully, instead of tracing over old lines. There are also, like in the rhizome, multiple entryways onto and within the Internet.

There are several problems with using the Internet as a model of the rhizome. There is the problem of the hierarchical nature of computer data and computer functioning. Computers do not know things, they follow steps of instructions to calculate things. This is true of each individual computer and server on the Internet. The way that I route around this problem is by looking at the Internet not as many individual computers, but as system that functions as one large unit. In this case, there is no hierarchy of computers, no order with which one must form links between databases. Since the rhizome is a system concept, I see no problem with the way that I have dealt with this difficulty by looking at the Internet as a system.

The other problem with using the Internet as a model of the rhizome arises when discussing the principle of the rhizome which requires that rhizomes have multiple entryways. Typically, an Internet user will only have one Internet access account, and thus one entryway on to the Internet. To resolve this problem, I move to a theoretical level. In theory, anyone can set up a computer or server on the Internet which would allow them to create their own access point or node as it called by computer networking professionals. Similarly, anyone can sign up for Internet access with any of the companies that provide such a service. In theory, this resolves the problem of multiple access points, however things do not always work out in the same way that things on a theoretical level would make us believe. What is happening in today's world is that class, race, and gender divisions determine who has access to computer equipment and to the knowledge to use this technology. This means that, although those without financial restraints can have access to the Internet from multiple entryways, most people will not have such access at anytime in the foreseeable future. So the Internet is not truly a rhizome for all it's users, but for a select few it remains a rhizome with multiple entryways.

In this paper, we have seen that all of the principles of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome are present in the Internet. This has been demonstrated by comparing characteristics of the Internet to the principles of the rhizome. This paper is itself more of a map than a tracing as Deleuze and Guattari distinguish them from each other. This map has been created by the construction of new links between Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome and the Internet. Other pathways could have been taken, perhaps with different results. I spent a lot of time researching hypertext theory, for example, and had I chosen to stick with my original idea that hypertext theory is unmistakably linked to the theory of the rhizome, the map made would have been very different indeed.

As I completed this paper, I was telling one of my friends about the topic. He asked me, "now that you have an example of this theory, what does it tell you about people?" My answer was that it tells us nothing other than that the Internet is a rhizome. Although, in the words of Turkle, the Internet is an "instance of evocative computer objects and experiences bringing postmodernism down to earth", I remain a sceptic, feeling that post-modern theory, such as Deleuze and Guattari's, is not going to help me in my quest to understand the World around me. (Turkle, 17) What I did in this paper was interesting, but not entirely practical or revealing for me. As I place Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia back on the floor to prop open my door, I wonder if perhaps I have found a relevant application for it after all.

---

Bibliography: Robin Hamman

Appignanesi, Richard & Chris Garratt. Postmodernism for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd, 1995.

Conley, Verena Andermatt. (Ed.) Rethinking Technologies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari. (Translation: B. Massumi) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.

Heim, Michael. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Horrocks, Chris & Soran Jevtic. Baudrillard for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd, 1996.

Jones, Steven G. (Ed.) CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. London: Sage, 1995.

Kehoe, Bendan P. Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner's Guide (3rd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PTR Prentice Hall, 1994.

Landow, George P. (Ed.) Hyper/Text/Theory. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Lemert, Charles. (Ed.) Social Theory: The Multicultural & Classic Readings. Summertown, Oxford: Westview Press, 1993.

Morrow, Cindy. (Managing Ed.) The Internet: Unleashed 1996. Indianapolis, Indiana: Sams.net publishing (Macmillan Computer Publishing), 1995.

Moulthrop, Stuart. Rhizome and Resistance: Hypertext and the Dreams of a New Culture . Hyper/Text/Theory. Ed. George P. Landow, London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Ross, Andrew. Strange Weather: Culture, Science and Technology in the Age of Limits. London: Verso, 1991.

Scott, John. Sociological Theory: Contemporary Debates. Aldershot, Hants: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1995.

Slouka, Mark. War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the High-Tech Assault on Reality. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

Stone, Allucquere Rosanne. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age. London: MIT Press, 1995.

Taylor, Mark C. & Esa Saarinen. Imagologies: Media Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Turkle, Sherry. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.