backRhizome@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
This paper is in response to the essay question: Can the Internet be usedas an example of the "Rhizome" from Deleuze and Guattari's AThousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia ?
I have been studying sociology and other related disciplinesfor many years now and I have yet to pick up a book on theory that is accessibleand gets to the point without putting the reader through hours of hair pullingand swearing. I felt the same way when I first picked up Delueze and Guattari'sA Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.. As I read throughit the first time I kept thinking that it was all meaningless highbrow literaturefor those who like to have such things on their bookshelf. But certainlyit must have a point, otherwise it would not have been on the reading listsfor at least two of the courses I have taken. After rereading A ThousandPlateaus, I decided that it might be a worthwhile task to concentrateon one theory in the book, the rhizome, and try to apply it to somethingjust so that I could see if it worked. The rhizome, according to Moulthrop,is the "concept of social order defined by active transversal or encounterrather than objectification... Figures for this order include the oceanof the navigator or the desert of the nomad." (Moulthrop, 301) Anotherfigure, or example of the rhizome, is the Internet. What follows is my attemptto use the Internet as a real world example Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome.
In A Thousand Plateaus : Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Deleuze andGuattari describe the characteristics of their concept of the rhizome. Theseprinciples are presented briefly here so that the reader of this paper canget a sense of the whole theory before we engage in the task of applyingeach principle to the Internet. The first two principles of the rhizomeare the "principles of connection and heterogenity." These twoprinciples require that any point of a rhizome system can be connected toany other point. In other words, the rhizome is not hierarchical in structure.It is the anti-hierarchical: no point must come before another, no specificpoint must be connected to another point, but all points are and must beconnected. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 7) The third principle of the rhizomeis that of "multiplicity". The best way to understand this principleof 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 puppeteerthat controls the actions of the puppet, it is a "multiplicity of nervefibers." The puppeteer is him or herself a puppet of this multiplicity.(DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) It is not the points of contact between thestrings and the puppet or the point of contact between the hands of thepuppeteer and the wooden frame to which the strings are attached that areimportant when thinking rhizomatically, it is the lines between the pointsthat are important. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) The fourth principle ofthe rhizome is called the "principle of asignifying rupture."According to this principle, the rhizome may be "shattered at a givenspot, 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 rhizomeare those of "cartography" and "decalcomania". Theseprinciples state that the rhizome is not a tracing mechanism, but is a mapwith multiple entry points. Psychoanalysis, for example, is a representativetracing of the subconscious that exists prior to it's tracing. Tracing isnot creating new, it is representing old - following lines that are alreadythere. 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 outsideof the map to exist while tracings can only exists as representations. (DELEUZE& GUATTARI, 12) To summarise the key aspects of the rhizome as describedabove, Deleuze and Guattari state that, "The rhizome is an accentered,nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizingmemory or central automation, defined solely by a circulation of states."(DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 21)
Deleuze and Guattari, writing at a time when computers were usually standalone units with no connections to other computers, criticise computer designersfor "grant[ing] all power to a memory or central organ." (DELEUZE& GUATTARI, 16) The central organ I believe they are talking about isthe motherboard of the computer which contains all of the RAM and ROM memorychips which physically store what could be described as the mental aspectsof the computer. Without the motherboard, no programs could be run and nodata could be stored. The reliance on a "central organ" growseven deeper when we look at the hierarchical manner with which an individualcomputer stores and uses data by first codifying it into 1's and 0's. WhenDeleuze and Guattari talk about the hierarchical they describe it as beingrooted in binary logic. Deleuze and Guattari state that "Binary logicis the spiritual reality of the root-tree ." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI,5) Certain binary codes must be loaded onto the computer at start-up whileothers can be loaded at any time. For example, my Macintosh loads the MacintoshOperating System (OS) first because this is where instructions are for thecomputer to do other functions. After loading the OS, the computer loadsthe information needed for the computer to translate 1's and 0's into screencolours. After that, system extensions are loaded such as information thatthe computer needs to convert binary codes to font for the printer. Everythingmust 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 itrelies too much on hierarchy and power is not dispersed but is centrallylocated. If the hierarchy is broken, the computer ceases to function properly.Furthermore, the individual computer traces predetermined lines and doesnot create maps. My Macintosh computer, sitting on my desk with no connectionsto the outside world, is a closed system and is not rhizomatic.
Deleuze and Guattari contrast centred systems, such as the Macintosh onmy 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 Internetis very close to what Deleuze and Guattari describe above as a rhizomaticsystem. Rhizomatic systems, according to Deleuze and Guattari, are "finitenetworks of automata in which communication runs from any neighbor to anyother, 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 operationsare coordinated and the final, global result synchronized without centralagency." (D& G, 17) Let us now compare the early development ofthe Internet with several key aspects of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomaticsystem.
The Internet started as a project of the United States military during thecold war with the Soviet Union. In the 1960's, most major government agencies,defence contractors, and research bodies had isolated computer facilitieswhich they used primarily for research and data storage. The Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (ARPA) was created within the United States Department ofDefence to study ways in which to connect these computers so that data couldbe transferred in the event of a nuclear attack. If ARPA could find a wayfor information to be shared and rapidly transferred between these computers,it was thought that the information held by these computers could survivea nuclear attack. As long as at least one of the computers on the ARPA networksurvived nuclear attack, the data on government and defence computers couldand 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 importantcomputers in the United States, the British and French governments were"experimenting with a means of intercomputer communications calledpacket switching." (Morrow, 10) Before packet switching, if data wasto be transferred from computer A to computer C, a cable had to connectthe two in a hierarchical manner. If computer C was not accepting data,the data would not be transmitted. Packet switching allows computers toput data into packets, each with the destination marked on the outside,and to send them over cables to other computers. If computer A uses packetswitching, it can send directly to computer C, or it can send a packet tocomputer B and one to computer C which would then send it on to computerC when it began accepting data again. Computer C would then take the twopackets and put them together. According to a computer science expert, "Packetswitching does not rely on fixed connections between two computers. Rathermessages are contained in packets, which can be routed among computers untilthey reach their final destination." (Morrow, 10 - 12) Similar to Deleuzeand Guattari's rhizome, computers on the Internet, using packet switching,send information to any neighbouring computer on the Internet along routesthat may or may not have been pre-established. However, when talking ofthe Internet, there remains some of the language of a hierarchical system.There are destination computers and to access the Internet from my homecomputer, I must go through an Internet service provider. There is onlyone computer, one owned by Demon Internet, that presently gives me accessto 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 earlyInternet and Deleuze and Guattari's concept of the rhizome. We have alsoseen that there may be some problems with using the Internet as a modelof a rhizomatic system . There is another level of the Internet that wehave yet to look at here. That is the level of social usage. Let us looknow to the social usage of the Internet in comparison to the principlesof Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome as briefly put forth at the beginningof this paper.
Today there are over 45,000 networks and over five million computers connectedto the Internet. This number is reportedly growing at about ten percentper month. (Morrow, 4) There are no regulations on who can use the Internetas there were in the early days when it was under the control of ARPA. Anycomputer, given it has networking capabilities, can go on-line. When usingbrowser software, which is software that displays World Wide Web pages,computer users can connect to any computer on the Internet that they wishto connect to. There are no connections there until a person chooses tomake them . This is done by the user typing in an electronic address, oftenreferred to as an "HTTP ", to make a connection to a host computer.Sometimes the connection is made directly between the user's computer andthe database at the host computer which contains the desired web page. Othertimes, the user's computer will connect to a computer different than theso called host computer. This computer will then find a route to the desiredhost. 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 computerat MIT which then connects to a computer in Germany before connecting tothe University of Illinois computer. The computer user in Liverpool mayor may not know the route that is taken as the route is decided by computersthat have measured many possible routes before locating one that is notbusy. At some times in the day, when there are many users trying to makeconnections, routes get blocked or slowed, and delays in obtaining accessto information on a remote computer is slowed. It has been demonstratedhere that any point on the Internet, that is any computer, may connect withany other point. It does not follow a specific hierarchical path other thanwhen it comes to Internet access. True, Internet access points create ahierarchy, but once on the Internet, there is no hierarchy.
The third principle of the rhizome, which follows the above principles thatany point may be connected to any other point in the rhizome and that therebe no hierarchy within for a system for it to be rhizomatic, is the principleof multiplicity. In the example used earlier it was stated that it is the"multiplicity of nerve fiber" and not the hands of the puppeteerthat control the puppet. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) I see no reason whywe cannot say here that the same holds true for the users of the Internet.The computer user's "multiplicity of nerve fiber" controls thecomputer's connections - it is not the keyboard or the hands on it thatdoes this. There is even a further multiplicity present when using the Internetand that is the multiplicity of light pixels on the computer screen. Anotherpart of this third principle of rhizomes is that there are no points orpositions, just lines in a rhizome. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 8) At firstglance, this seems to call into question the suitability of the Internetas 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 appearthat 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 physicallygo from point to point on the Internet, instead users remain in the samephysical spot throughout their time spent browsing. People talk about goingto an Internet site, and some speak of having browsed a museum in, letus say Paris, when in reality they have gone nowhere. There are no pointsto go to that exist beyond the state of "consensual hallucination"that cyberspace is, just lines and connections between web pages that canbe followed and created. (Gibson, 1984, p.51)
So far, none of the principles of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome has seriouslycalled into question the suitability of the Internet as an example of arhizome. Let us look now at the remaining principles of the rhizome andcompare those with the Internet. The fourth principle of the rhizome isthat it can be shattered at any spot which would cause it to start againon either an old or new line. (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 12) It was mentionedearlier that the Internet, as it was first envisioned by the people at ARPA,was designed to withstand a nuclear holocaust. Surely today's Internet couldwithstand all but a total, world-wide, and sustained war. The Internet,or more correctly the computers on it, can route information around troublespots. A good example of this is when CompuServe, an on-line service aswell as an Internet access provider, denied access to sexually explicitUsenet groups due to pressure from the Bavarian government. Within severalhours of denying access to these Usenet groups, CompuServe users figuredout a way around the restrictions. All they had to do was log on to CompuServeand connect to a third party host computer that did carry the banned newsgroups. In other words, CompuServe users whose access to news groups hadbeen "shattered" regained access by creating new links betweentheir computers and the ones that contained the databases where the bannedgroups were stored. This example of attempts to regulate the Internet canbe 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 anystructural or generative model." The example of CompuServe's attemptto regulate user access to specific news groups is an example of how theInternet is a model of this principle. The structure of the Internet isforever changing and changeable. Attempts to purposely block users fromobtaining certain data or to regulate access have been unsuccessful becauseof this. It appears, at the time of this writing, that further forcefulattempts to alter the structure of the Internet will be unsuccessful aswell. 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 isthat the rhizome is "a map and not a tracing", and that this maphas "multiple entryways." (DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 12) It hasbeen mentioned earlier that there are many routes, or links, amongst computerson the Internet. These links are sometimes well established while at othertimes new routes and linkages take place. There are multiple entryways inthe sense that, once on the Internet, I can choose whichever Internet siteor home page I wish as my entryway. There is no reason why I could not chooseto start at the Guinness Home Page when I access the Internet today, andthen tomorrow use the University of Essex homepage as my entrypoint. Thusa 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 withinthe 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 computerfunctioning. Computers do not know things, they follow steps of instructionsto calculate things. This is true of each individual computer and serveron the Internet. The way that I route around this problem is by lookingat the Internet not as many individual computers, but as system that functionsas one large unit. In this case, there is no hierarchy of computers, noorder with which one must form links between databases. Since the rhizomeis a system concept, I see no problem with the way that I have dealt withthis difficulty by looking at the Internet as a system.
The other problem with using the Internet as a model of the rhizome ariseswhen discussing the principle of the rhizome which requires that rhizomeshave multiple entryways. Typically, an Internet user will only have oneInternet access account, and thus one entryway on to the Internet. To resolvethis problem, I move to a theoretical level. In theory, anyone can set upa computer or server on the Internet which would allow them to create theirown access point or node as it called by computer networking professionals.Similarly, anyone can sign up for Internet access with any of the companiesthat provide such a service. In theory, this resolves the problem of multipleaccess points, however things do not always work out in the same way thatthings on a theoretical level would make us believe. What is happening intoday's world is that class, race, and gender divisions determine who hasaccess to computer equipment and to the knowledge to use this technology.This means that, although those without financial restraints can have accessto the Internet from multiple entryways, most people will not have suchaccess at anytime in the foreseeable future. So the Internet is not trulya rhizome for all it's users, but for a select few it remains a rhizomewith multiple entryways.
In this paper, we have seen that all of the principles of Deleuze and Guattari'srhizome are present in the Internet. This has been demonstrated by comparingcharacteristics of the Internet to the principles of the rhizome. This paperis itself more of a map than a tracing as Deleuze and Guattari distinguishthem from each other. This map has been created by the construction of newlinks between Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome and the Internet. Other pathwayscould have been taken, perhaps with different results. I spent a lot oftime researching hypertext theory, for example, and had I chosen to stickwith my original idea that hypertext theory is unmistakably linked to thetheory 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 doesit tell you about people?" My answer was that it tells us nothing otherthan that the Internet is a rhizome. Although, in the words of Turkle, theInternet is an "instance of evocative computer objects and experiencesbringing postmodernism down to earth", I remain a sceptic, feelingthat post-modern theory, such as Deleuze and Guattari's, is not going tohelp me in my quest to understand the World around me. (Turkle, 17) WhatI did in this paper was interesting, but not entirely practical or revealingfor me. As I place Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalismand Schizophrenia back on the floor to prop open my door, I wonder if perhapsI 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: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1993.
Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari. (Translation: B. Massumi) A ThousandPlateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1987.
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
Heim, Michael. The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1993.
Horrocks, Chris & Soran Jevtic. Baudrillard for Beginners. Cambridge:Icon Books Ltd, 1996.
Jones, Steven G. (Ed.) CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication andCommunity. London: Sage, 1995.
Kehoe, Bendan P. Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner's Guide (3rdEdition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PTR Prentice Hall, 1994.
Landow, George P. (Ed.) Hyper/Text/Theory. London: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 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 ofa New Culture. Hyper/Text/Theory. Ed. George P. Landow, London: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1994.
Ross, Andrew. Strange Weather: Culture, Science and Technology in the Ageof 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 onReality. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
Stone, Allucquere Rosanne. The War of Desire and Technology at the Closeof 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.
top