This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: Problems with rhizome?
Part of the forum "Dialog Cafe" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| Ghost Tue Jul 4th, 2006 at 07:08 PM |
Something's bugging me. I'll start off by saying that I'm not an expert on rhizome. I'm not saying there are problems, I'm ASKING if there are. All this talk about the use of violence got me thinking about the cases in which violence is useful or even necessary. I shudder to use the term "we". I'm dead set against nationalist identity. When I was organising a group of students to go to the Summit of the Americas, people asked, "but what should we call ourselves?" The problem is that I wasn't doing it for the sake of some group. I was doing it for my own sake. I thought I should go and so I was trying to help other INDIVIDUALS who wanted to go. We run into problems when we start looking at ourselves as some kind of ideological group. We run the risk of the ideology becoming the most important thing. (Funnily enough, I'm being innundated with honking horns as I write this. "Italy" just won their World Cup game and are going to the finals and "Italians" are quite elated.) Still, the majority of people on this board, although we are not a special interest group fighting to force OUR version of change, are certainly rowing in the same general direction. So I want to avoid statements like "when WE can use violence" and especially "when we can use violence against CIVILISATION." We are not a nation. Civilisation is not our enemy. Sounds rambly, but it ties in 8) One of the main points I was trying to stress in the violence thread was that we shouldn't look at our situation in terms of there being a foe to vanquish before we can move forward. We should look at things in the sense that "we" (our group of no allegiance) want to make our livings differently. Luckily, there is no one right way, so we don't all have to advovcate the same alternative. There isn't much difficulty with making your living a different way. We all have ideas of what we can do and what might work. The problem is COMPETING in a world full of powerful ANNIHILATORS. This is where I'm going. Any one of us might find themselves in one of these alternative living-making situations at some point in the future. We, as members of these cooperative groups, may also find ourselves and our groups in direct competition with a hierarchical group that practices the Annihilator strategy (I purposefully avoided calling them AnnihilaTORS because I don't want to suggest that that is their state of being). This, of course, is much different than finding one's self in conflict with civilisation. Now. We know the perils of competing against a hierarchical group are that one, they're militarised and enjoy a significant military advantage and two, they are more than willing to use that advantage to destroy you rather than have to bother competing with you. If one finds themselves in this situation, then the use of violence may well become necessary. Just by following the "give as good as you get" strategy, the contest will likely ESCALATE right past violence and get to extermination. This is not good. Primarilly because cooperative groups, as a (very strong) general rule, cannot go toe to toe with hierarchical groups for the reasons outlined above. So the likely outcome, supported by our history, is that the cooperative group will be wiped out. Along comes Jeff Vail. He suggests the RHIZOME structure. (fell free to correct anything I say about rhizome if I'm patently mistaken) What he suggests is that small cooperative groups can band together in a very lose manner in an attempt to even the odds with their hierarchical opponents in terms of military advantage (analagous to independent terrorist cells). (my point) There are four main military advantages: logistics, numbers, tactics and technology. The idea is that a rhizomal group might be able to pool what they have to come out in an advatageous position. (point ends) The beauty of the structure is that it is NOT hierarchical. There is no central leadership. There is simply a (loose or no) coalition of small and independent coopearative groups who remain fully autonomous but work cooperatively toward a common goal (like defense). ...hmmm... that's about as good an explination as I can give... feel free to fill in the gaps. So now, we get to my concern. We know that one of the great advantages of hierachy is that a single leader (or small council of leaders) can directly control VAST amounts of people and materiel. Their authority is either total or near-total. They can maintain this control through the manipulation of coercive forces; essentially, threatening those beneath them with retaliation should they decide not to give their full allegience to the hierarchy and by extension, the leaders. This is not possible in a rhizomal structure (I imagine). There is no central leadership, each CELL in the network has it's own cooperative power structure that retains full sovereignty. Participation in the overall rhizomal structure is voluntary (is that right?). So the benefit of the rhizomal structure is that cooperative groups, who are inherently sustainable, a desirable trait for anyone who wishes to make their living in a sustainable manner, but who cannot directly compete against hierarchical groups, are given the opportunity to compete by gaining access to a large network of other cooperative groups. So if a cooperative group is a member of a rhizomal organisation, they have the ability to meet violence with violence should it be necessary. THIS would be a case where violence is a good strategy if one comes under attack. Provided I didn't totally cock that up, I'm cool wit dat. --- So here's my worry. Could a rhizomal network that is doing well for itself be open to the invasion of hierarchy? Is it possible that a "big man" could rise to prominence in such a structure? I imagine that there would be a fair degree of communication between the cooperative groups conducted by people who have been tasked by their individual groups to speak on their behalf (analagous to an elected official). Of course, these people are given legitimacy by their constituents who can limit what decision-making powers (if any) they have. But if a big man was to emerge, these people could very easily act as liaisons between the big man and the individual cooperatives. Do you see where I'm going with this? It seems similar to the SOCIAL HIERARCHY idea we spoke of a few months back. Where the leader doesn't really have authority, but is virtually in that position because the demands of organising such a large group require a central voice. I'm not saying that rhizome REQUIRES central leadership, quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that it could be problematic if it emerged. Now... When we were speaking about social hierarchy, we figured that there has to be a transition. Some event in which the powerless big man suddenly gets his hands on coercive force and becomes powerfull. This may be possible if the different elements of the rhizomal structure begin to work together a-la complex division of labour. There will already be a military component available for take-over. Could a rhizomal structure adopt a form of the complex division of labour that would allow them to produce a surplus? (As a POSSIBLY related example, the Six Nations had a grain surplus that could last the entire confederation five years.) Does a link exist between the individual groups that could be exploited by a demagogue? By that I mean, are there ideological similarities, a nationalist identity for the entire structure, that could be... made to appear like it supersedes the individual cooperative ones... that individuals could swear their allegiance to? Basically, can the importance be shifted away from the autonomy of the individual groups to the cohesion of the whole? (I imagine the call being "everything is so decentralised and inefficient. Imagine what we could do if we acted as one.") At that point, what if a single cooperative wants to leave, but the others decide not to let them? Or what if the organisation wants to force a neighbouring cooperative to join? The benefit of rhizome is that it gives the rhizomal organisation the ability to compete, which means it has the CHANCE to resolve a conflict IN THEIR FAVOUR. But is it naive to think that a rhizomal group will only work in concert when they are resisting an exterior claim on a member group's resources? What if a member group needs, or even wants to claim something not currently under their control? The military force of the structure can be used to TAKE just as easily as it can be used to defend. That, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. So long as they aren't using Annhilator it's good, clean competition. But could the clever demagogue exploit this (the fact that they have the ability to annex and have a significant military advantage) and redefine in which situations it is acceptable to just take? Would the wide-spread adoption of rhizome FORCE the adoption of rhizome by other groups? Ie, if you aren't in a large rhizomal group, you can't compete against your neighbours. (ABSOLUTELY HYPOTHETICALLY... is this what we saw in North America? Where the only way to compete was to join a network. It would explain the Huron, Algonquin and Iroquois. Could their neighbours, unaffiliated small tribes, compete against them?) Anyhoo, I'm affraid I can't get my concerns any clearer than that because I'm not speaking from a place of great understanding. I figure, in a nutshell, is there a danger of a rhizomal organisation transitioning to either a hierarchical one, or transitioning to some other structure (retaining the cosmetic features of rhizome) that may be equally dangerous (perhaps, BIG perhaps, like the Iroquois Confederacy)? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| e-dawg Tue Jul 4th, 2006 at 10:05 PM |
I love you man, but I can't consume enough calories to make it through your posts without getting lightheaded. It's like a marathon for the eyes. I agree about the dangers of group mentality. |
| TwoRoadsTom Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 02:30 AM |
I'd love to post something more profound (but unfortunately, housework calls) but I'm going to posit another challenge -- is the problem you proposed rhizomatically really a problem? If each one of the cells is a sovereign cooperative unto itself, then it will, in microcosm, still be much better than the cult of individual that pervades itself today. And a mesh of rhizomes working together could form a 'body'-like society bound only by its overall eco-region. Perhaps you've described something relatively new? Best Bill Maxwell |
| Xavin Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 03:16 AM |
Matt, Quote: Could a rhizomal network that is doing well for itself be open to the invasion of hierarchy? Is it possible that a "big man" could rise to prominence in such a structure? Yes, if the society has enough energy to support one. I believe that a rhizome can mitigate the possiblity with various social mores. Quote: Would the wide-spread adoption of rhizome FORCE the adoption of rhizome by other groups? Ie, if you aren't in a large rhizomal group, you can't compete against your neighbours. "http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/09/defending-pala-rhizome-as-mode-of.html" wrote: Rhizome cannot “make war” in the classical sense, because it has no capacity for offensive warfare—the kind of military operations that I will outline here are structurally limited to defensive and reactionary operations (even if they may use offensive tactics to defensive ends). This is because rhizome is structurally incapable of exerting control beyond itself—the pattern of rhizome can spread, but it is fundamentally incapable of controlling another entity. Have you read all of Vail's writings on rhizome? I found them very enjoyable. You can access them from the front page of his blog. The links are in the right column just under the search. |
| Nene Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 10:35 AM |
Hey Matt -- Ok, first off, I am probably going to mangle rhizome just a little... I think I understand it, but I haven't really internalized it yet... "Matt" wrote: I imagine that there would be a fair degree of communication between the cooperative groups conducted by people who have been tasked by their individual groups to speak on their behalf (analagous to an elected official). Of course, these people are given legitimacy by their constituents who can limit what decision-making powers (if any) they have. I think that you are conflating the concept of rhizome with something akin to a democracy... rhizome is a loose affiliation between individual communities... but it is NOT 'managed' by 'representatives' of each group. It is entirely possible for a rhizomatic network to have NO communication structure (although that would be unlikely as an extreme)... when an individual group runs into a conflict, they don't 'send a message to the 'confederation'', they DO, perhaps, send out a general call to anyone and everyone that can hear... and then each group that gets the message will determine IF they will do anything about it, and if so WHAT they will do in that instance. It is this very nature... the flexible, unstructured unpredictability of a rhizome structure that gives it power. And in the case of direct confrontation between hierarchy and rhizome (as in the possible case of some terrorist 'groups') that not only are the cells independant and loosely connected, but in fact, NO ONE knows who they are or what they plan to do -- including themselves and every other cell. Let that soak in a little and then we'll see where we are at... Janene |
| prometheus235 Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 12:11 PM |
Matt, ask Vail himself. Kick him an e-mail and i am sure he will respond. also, I would suggest a detailed reading of his site, and a Theory of Power. TOP isn't exactly the endall of rhizome, and it is very much like Beyond Civilization, in that it is short, to the point, and very open-ended. My gut says "how can you have a big man when your groups are comitted, from the get-go, to autonomy and self-sufficiency?" A leader would have to give me the best blowjob ever before i would even consider throwing in with one. |
| Ghost Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 01:21 PM |
Thanks for the responses. Keep 'em comin'. Bill, I'm not shitting on rhizome. I'm really not. Of course a group of cooperative groups (allow my self to introduce myself) is better than a single hierarchy. Just read my mammoth post The Theory of Productivity. In theory, rhizome seems to be the best of all worlds. I'm just wondering if there is a fatal flaw in the design. If there is, let's see if it's inherrent or if it can be fixed, or even just monitored. If not, then hey, no problems. It's high speed, low drag 8) "Bill" wrote: And a mesh of rhizomes working together could form a 'body'-like society bound only by its overall eco-region. Perhaps you've described something relatively new? Perhaps. But I'm rarely original. See, in theory, a cooperative is INCAPABLE of producing a surplus. So a big mesh of them should be infinitely sustainable, un-invadable, and, like you say, bound by the carrying capacity of their ecosystem. My question is, are there... I guess, EMERGENT properties... involved in rhizome that may cause it to strengthen the ties between the individual cooperatives, making the superorganism a problem akin to hierarchy (the problem being the ability to produce at surplus levels and all of the sub-problems of that ability: militarisation, population growth, food race, totalitarian production, etc...)? Yo, William, Always a pleasure, dude. "William" wrote: Yes, if the society has enough energy to support one. I believe that a rhizome can mitigate the possiblity with various social mores. This makes me worry. It makes me believe that YES, the possibility exists, its an inherent flaw, but perhaps it can be monitored. I just don't trust monitoring. "William" wrote: Have you read all of Vail's writings on rhizome? I found them very enjoyable. You can access them from the front page of his blog. The links are in the right column just under the search. Read? Aww, man. Can't you just sum up? I read a bunch of it a few months back, but like I said, I'm no expert. I'm kinda swamped with reading right now. If I have the strength, I'll take a stab at the section you posted. Or... you could explain why they can't conduct offensive warfare. Eh? Eh? 8) Yo, Janene. The blind leading the blind. I love it. Perhaps I am conflating things. But that's why I said it was analagous. Entire cooperatives can't communicate. There has to be a liaison. If the rhizomal structure is absolutely incommunicado, then there won't be, but there is more likely SOME degree of communication. So, theoretically, these people won't be managers, but if a big man were to emerge, the liaisons would be his likeliest way of directly communicating with the individual tribes. At the very least, a big man would have to create liaisons if none existed. So yeah, I get that each cell doesn't have to commit to every action. But some people may see that as a drawback, a la, "we have this network, let's use the damn thing." The only way to use the network ACTIVELY vs PASSIVELY is to build a central leadership. If that's impossible, then we're good. If it is, then crap. On another note... I may have just thought of a serious flaw with the strategy. The rhizomal terrorist groups being compared are populated by people in the hierarchy. If tribes were rhizomal, it would be very clear that they are "powered" by their settlements. Rhizome doesn't seem to be big on the frontal assault tip. Meaning that the hierarchical opponent could just roll into the village and kill everyone. Yo, Rory. Maybe I'll just e-mail him my post. Could you PM me his address if you have it? Read? Aww, man. "Rory" wrote: A leader would have to give me the best blowjob ever before i would even consider throwing in with one. What if he promised you a Porsche? Or money? Or power? Or vengeance? Or the all powerful... whores? "First to get the money, then to get the power, then to get the women." "Rory" wrote: My gut says "how can you have a big man when your groups are comitted, from the get-go, to autonomy and self-sufficiency?" That makes sense. BUT, the benefit of central leadership is more stuff. People might be convinced to go for that again. There's no limit to the sneakyness of the human animal. My gut tells me that it's possible, but that a vigilant counter meme could keep it in check. Maybe a sort of UN of tribes would be good. Like everyone agrees to play erratic retaliator and to pass a security resolution against any group, in the UN or not, who started to play Annihilator. But maybe that degree of organising could lead to the big man thing. I might be overreacting on this one. But hey, it's a good point to examine. If we can identify signs of a transition, then we know what to make taboo. I'm confident about the idea that Quinn put forward in Beyond Civ. The idea is that once we shatter the mythology of the benefits of hierarchy, the majority of people won't return to it. I imagine it would be like those stories of an ancient evil contained in some sacred stone that the plucky child is destined to save everyone from. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| prometheus235 Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 01:45 PM |
Quote: What if he promised you a Porsche? Or money? Or power? Or vengeance? Or the all powerful... whores? "First to get the money, then to get the power, then to get the women." all of those things i can easily get on my own. I also have no interest in any of them, except maybe whores, which I can get easily. If the groups that form the collective are not interested in any of that, what can someone offer them? try jeff@jeffvail.net I would ask him to come on over to ishcon and see if we can talk this out. if not, I would appreciate it if i could see what he says. You do raise pertinent issues, and i would like find out from the source what his answers are. R |
| memeshredder Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 03:38 PM |
Maybe I can help. I know a lot about how mycorrhizal realtionships work in nature. Let's hope what nature provides will provide for us. First of all, Matt, I believe you have valid concerns. Thnk about what a rhizome is in nature, in the first place. it's a root. Specifically, it's a grass root who, given space and nutruents, will sprout more and more grass blades until it runs up against something it cannot compete against. But this rhizome relationship only builds more grass blades, it only growns one organism. I believe that your concerns are correct Matt, and that they will eventually lead to a "something else" that perhaps I will help create here in this forum. Right now, I have to get back to work, and I will psot more later this afternoon about what exactly I am thinking about. |
| TwoRoadsTom Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 03:55 PM |
So perhaps what we want is a mycorrhizal relationship, with the 'roots' we connect to are our natural ecosystems. Our communications/alliances to other groups are then the "fungal roots" which help supply 'nutrients' so-to-speak to other ecosystems. Hm. Group dynamics based on supporting someone else's eco-region, not your own (with, of course, some benefit to you as well since when you give support, you get support). Interesting... Oh, and btw, Matt, I didn't think you were shitting on rhizomal theory. I was contemplating whether what you saw as a problem was actually a problem. A "body" of humans / a nation, founded on diverse tribes as its core cells might be the sustainable meta-structure people have been working on, on-and-off, for a few millennia. Envisioned, it might be bound by its eco-region (though thriving at the corners, while trading with other entities) and sustainable only within that eco-region (relatively little surplus). Imagine a system of potlaches going all the way through a 'body' to feed it as a whole, eliminating surplus in any one specific area. Just a thought Best Bill Maxwell |
| memeshredder Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 05:32 PM |
Yes, Bill! Right the fuck on! Allow me to elaborate... (or rather, let me try to describe how nature elaborates) "I" wrote: Think about what a rhizome is in nature, in the first place. it's a root. Specifically, it's a grass root who, given space and nutruents, will sprout more and more grass blades until it runs up against something it cannot compete against. But this rhizome relationship only builds more grass blades, it only growns one organism. Rhizome is a central root from which other roots, and other rhizomes, can spring. But in no way, is it a model for communcaiton, or government, it is more of a model of self-replication. Using the term as a nautral metaphor. If this model were to be employed, culture and the most often quoted military tactics would be decided upon the species of the initial rhizome. In order for rhizome to work, by definition, it has to spread out in a uniform fashion. The strength is in that information is being shared, but in a rhizome relationship, that relationship is linear, mother to child, a genetic relationship. Creating a core and periphery realtionship, inevitably leading to hiearchy, as those who decided what the military structure in the beginning, those who set the rhizome pattern out to start with, have the set agenda, wheter or not they continue to control the agenda, and keep it all one organism or create autonomous organisms, that somehow "agree" and even train together, yet maintain uniqueness? I don't see how it is possible to use such a linera model in order to describe the actual needs of humans in organizing against the hierarchy. Rhizome, will, hierachy or not, lead to a shallow gene pool, which is easily attacked by the many opportunistic organisms, constantly multipling, and adapting to new opportunities. I believe, and feel free to call me crazy, that "humans" are not supposed to form a "meta-organism" just as there is not a meta-organism of primates or bacteria, or Amanita Muscaria. I believe humans were on the path to creating many, many new species, with civilization quickly hitting the reset button on that game. I think humans should be encouraged to evoled in all of the 10,000 ways, some which may call "backward" some of which some may call "forward" I believe that movement, that change, is what is important. nature will take care fo the rest (unless you believe in the sanctity of the soul, which causes serious problems in regards to evolution(and if the pineal glad is the seat of the soul(Descartes), then god is a frog)). What you want to bring about Matt, is a mycorrhizal relationship between species of humans. I believe, as I believe you may believe, that the tension between getting people to work together without losing their old identity or gaining a new one is difficult even in the most open of atmospheres. You see, mycorrhizal relationships already involve more than one species. In fact, they can involve hundreds of species at once. At the beautiful thing is that they all have COEVOLVED to work together, to respond to each other, to nurture one another. Mycelia, the other half of mycorrhizae, are already non-linear. They propigate asexually and sexually (with six different sexes!). They learn and they grow. They aren't necessarily on a genetic mission to produce offspring and die. They don't strive for a form. They exist for multiple reasons, many of which concern moving nutrients along the forest floor, concentrate within their cell walls metals and toxins deadly to their symbiot, And mayn, many other things that still ahve yet to be described. Nwo imgaine huamns putting the mycorrhizal relationship into a military strategy. First off all, there would be no single species, and certainly no favored species. The species that get the supplies are those that are deficient. Species, here, are tribes, families, bands, all the myriad ways humans can work together.... Communication and resource allocation is really important. Whatever level at which the hierachy communicates, you must be a step ahead. If they've got satellites, then you need underground tunnels and micro cameras. The mycelium in nature have coeveolved with their hosts for so long, that they are set up to met the needs of the plants. This is why I beleive there must be "ninja" and "pirate" species of humans. ninjas work in small groups to attck the core at it's weak spots. Pirates work the fringes in larger numbers, feeding off excess and filling the jails with petty crimes. Both human species fit well because they serve a desired niche. Other human species would be those who wholly produce weapons. Clearly, an important species, but certainly not simply favored. How does one go about organizing hoodlums, industrialists, and state-topplers into a cohesive unit? Take a page from nature. All of the species COEVOLVED to serve each other. But fortunately, none are dependent, as all species self-matabolise, but they do lean on each other in lean times. A mycorrhizal network will deliver excess potassium thousands of yards from the abundant tree to the deficient tree, without asking, or robbing Peter to pay Paul. (pay paul, paypal, now do you get it?). this path could cross several species of fungi and flora to reach it's destination. How do they do this? So far, it is a secret of nature, but luckily, we have cell phones and the internet. The beginning of life on the surface of the earth was a partnership with fungi and algea, what we call today "lichens." The orginal buddy movie, lichens, are probably why we have coevolved everything on this planet. remember, we can probably thank two species for all the plant and fungal life on this planet. And if not just two species, we can thank the concept of pairs, the simplest of relationships, and remember it only takes two to tango, an above-ground solar collector organism, and a below ground carbon recycler organism. Then, you throw in the coevolved bacteria, with some walking fishes, and you have a land-based ecosystem. I've been holding my tongue on this for a while because everytime I tried to write a thread called "problems with rhizome" I found myself looking a bunch of shit up, not know what I'm talking about, and feeling vaguely hostile to a "new" idea. it's not that rhizome tiself is a bad idea, but not only does it have problems, but as a mirror of nature reflecting onto humans, it hardly tells the whole story, if anything, because we are more like the carbon-cycling mycelium thatn we are like the soloar-gathering plants. I hope this mini-article has contributed to the thread. Tony p.s. Critical Mass transportation demonstrations are an example of where Rhizome works within both the extrapolated meaning fo the word, and as a reflection of nature. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass ) p.p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerocracy |
| odb_fan_1 Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 07:07 PM |
I just read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and one of the things it stresses is completely open dialog. What this means is that everyone is on the same page. Like Navy Seals (purportedly), you dont leave anyone (intellectually) behind. If you do, you're committing violence against people's existential experience or something. I dont know, I kinda read fast. The point is: Paulo firmly believes that the oppressed have to be educated to a point before they can truly liberate themselves. (He said leaders emerge though, but then you could play the "referential vs positional power" card (I forget what Jason so passionately referred to that dichotomy as).) |
| random_vagrant Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 07:59 PM |
"e-dawg" wrote: I love you man, but I can't consume enough calories to make it through your posts without getting lightheaded. It's like a marathon for the eyes. I agree about the dangers of group mentality. Ditto. I find myself experiancing this problem here quite a bit. I don't mean that in a bad way. This is just soo much to digest. |
| jeffvail Wed Jul 5th, 2006 at 09:52 PM |
Hi Matt, et. al. Thanks for inviting me to take part in this conversation… Let me start off by saying that I’m not an expert on Rhizome. I didn’t invent the metaphor—that honor goes to Gilles Deleuze—but I did shape it to fit what I was thinking at the time. It works for me as a shorthand for a more complex set of concepts, but since I certainly don’t claim that it is “my” definition, I’m sure some confusion arises from the multitude of different meanings. As a result, what I refer to when I say “rhizome” isn’t very closely approximated by the biological meaning of “rhizome” (as memeshredder pointed out). I guess that it is initially useful to use this kind of biological metaphor, but that eventually it becomes restrictive as the two concepts diverge (as they inevitably will to some degree). So that said, here’s my latest working definition of rhizome, or at least what I think of when I use that term: A self-conscious, flat, random network of substantially self-sufficient but interconnected nodes By “self-conscious” I don’t mean that the network has itself gained consciousness (though that, too, may happen), but rather that all participants are highly conscious of the specific structure of the network, and why each part of that structure (such as the self-consciousness) is important to its survival. “Flat, random network” is not an accidental word choice: by that I am implying that it is not scale free and, to the extent possible, all nodes are roughly the same size and enjoy about the same connectivity. “Substantially self-sufficient” is important because, while coordination and cooperation between nodes can create benefits, such interaction is consciously NOT used to meet self-sufficiency, as to do so would create dependency and lead to hierarchy. Could a successful rhizome network be susceptible to incursion by hierarchy? It seems like a danger that must be designed against. I think that rhizome does a pretty good job (though it needs improvement) in presenting very little that hierarchy wants (surplus), as well as potentially being aphasic, or on a “diagonal” with the perceptive powers of hierarchal expansion. Could a “big-man” rise to prominence within such a structure? Only to the extent that such structure fails to achieve the “self-conscious” status necessary for its survival. Just as the !Kung insult the catch of another hunter, some form of social negative feedback loop needs to exist within rhizome to prevent this from happening. While extant “primitive” cultures tend to accomplish this by way of story, fable, taboo, etc. that abstractly prohibits the rise of potential big-men (because if they didn’t they would no longer exist), I think that a self-aware social mechanics is more promising. Extant cultures were never (ok, rarely) consciously designed, so they had no opportunity to incorporate social regulatory mechanisms in a self-aware manner. The rare instances when this has—to one degree or another—happened, such as the framing of the US constitution, the self-aware nature of the experiment has made it very powerful. This is quite similar to the mention above that the oppressed must be educated before they can liberate themselves. Some people will always be smarter in some ways than others, but there must be at least a core set of concepts about the method of organization that are well understood by the majority. What if a single node wants to leave, but others don’t want them to? I think that if this becomes a problem, then the structure has already failed for two reasons. First, nodes should not become dependent on other nodes OR the network (although this becomes problematic in the case of physical power and military defense). Second, I think that “leaving” is more accurately (in the context of rhizome) phrased as “no longer participating.” This may seem like a semantic distinction, but I think that it goes a long way to communicate the nature of the network itself—that is, the rhizome network is emergent, not ordered. As Janene pointed out, individual nodes may not even be aware of their role in the larger result. Whenever we begin to talk about emergence things get a bit sketchy… I apologize, but if I were at all capable of writing intelligently about emergence I would love to write a whole book on that topic! Looking back over that, it seems like an entirely unsatisfactory “answer” to the questions raised in this post. I think that some very valid concerns are brought up, and I think that whatever structure(s) end up successfully creating an alternative to the present system, they will have evolved a long way from whatever people think of when one says “rhizome” today. The particular areas of concern for me are how physical power is dealt with at both the temporal transition from hierarchal to a post-hierarchal societal structure (due probably to energy descent) and also the spatial transition between pockets of rhizome and pockets of non-rhizome (whatever that may end up being). Some form of feudalism seems like the most likely (and undesirable) alternative to rhizome in the more distant future—largely because it operates on essentially opposite organizational principles. For the immediate future the concerns of “how does rhizome compete physically with modern empire” are rightly paramount. No matter where you stand on the “war on terror,” I think that current events are providing great insight and some answers to those concerns (read John Robb's blog if you don't already). And now I’m on the verge of rambling… ~Jeff http://www.jeffvail.net/[/url] |
| Xavin Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 03:32 AM |
Tony, How literally do you mean different human species? |
| memeshredder Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:41 AM |
we define species by genes. their ability to mate with each other and produce offspring. The same would go for two cultures. similiarities in their memes that would allow them to reproduce together. Over a longer scale of time, I would hope that homo sapien (as well as homo magister), would be extinct, not that intelligent life didn't continue, but that we kept climbing the ladder. We understand how using anti-bacterial soaps makes us sicker. What we don't know, is how important being exposed to a greater amount of vectors will increase our evolution. I believe it would accelerate once the Microbiotic Holocaust is over with. With humans filling niches, and being more and more explosed to genetic-altering by virii, it may go pretty fast. In the time between the seven daughters of Eve and right before massive colonial expansion, we hadn't quite drifted far apart enough to not be able to produce offspring. But making cultures that are capable of rejecting other's culture (that is, at a point, open culture kills itself) is necessary. Being a totally open culture fits well into modern can't-we-all-get-along sentiment, but it does not produce a sustainable result. gotta go back to work now, more later |
| Talvir Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 12:32 PM |
AIEEEEEEEEEEEE! I want my mommy! :cry: |
| Ghost Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 01:22 PM |
Hey, Jeff. Thanks for stopping by. If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain 8) The self-conscious thing. I can understand it's importance in principal. Being at the fore would certainly help people make decisions that would help rather than hinder. However, people in a hierarchy aren't really self-conscious of their participation in that organisation. How do you propose/suppose people would be self-conscious of the importance of a rhizome network? I do like your point about the power of self-aware social engineering (a la Constitution). Could you elaborate on "scale free"? On the self-sufficiency tip, do you feel that an intertribal economy and rhizome are incompatible? Uhm... aphasic? Oh, I totally get that rhizome doesn't produce surplus. I'm just wondering what, if any, conditions might... promote... the invasion of hierarchy. It's a good point that if the rhizome knows to not allow big men that it will be able to defend against them. My heart tells me that Quinn is right and that once the mythology of hierarchy is shown for what it is that the vast majority will never return to it. Throw in social mores that actively defend against it and we're in good shape. BTW, any speculation about what some of those might look like? But the cynical side of me loves the frosted... er... is worried that ambition might trump common sense and that taboos can be defeated. I'd just like to throw in that the opressORS need to be educated before they can free themselves too. I agree. If we get to the point that nodes are forcing other nodes to join/stay, the project has already failed. It's a sure fire sign that the primacy of the individual has been replaced by the primacy of the super-organism. "Jeff" wrote: First, nodes should not become dependent on other nodes OR the network (although this becomes problematic in the case of physical power and military defense). Care to explain? On the not participating vs leaving tip, do you mean that the rhizome network is not a permanent institution but rather an ad-hoc and temporary one? If that is the case, is there a problem with a delay in mustering in the face of an immediate crisis? Does one, or do groups, need to start from scratch every time there is a conflict? I know nothing about emergence unfortunately. I think you had some good answers because they led to more questions. I think what I'm personally interested in is how hierarchy MIGHT develop in a rhizome and how we can, as you say, design against it. I did have two questions that I'd like you to address. "I" wrote: On another note... I may have just thought of a serious flaw with the strategy. The rhizomal terrorist groups being compared are populated by people in the hierarchy. If tribes were rhizomal, it would be very clear that they are "powered" by their settlements. Rhizome doesn't seem to be big on the frontal assault tip. Meaning that the hierarchical opponent could just roll into the village and kill everyone. I get the sense that the military power of rhizome rests in guerilla and unconventional warfare and that head to head engagements are sort of out of the question. If that's the case, is the above a problem? "I" wrote: Would the wide-spread adoption of rhizome FORCE the adoption of rhizome by other groups? Ie, if you aren't in a large rhizomal group, you can't compete against your neighbours. ... is this what we saw in North America? Where the only way to compete was to join a network. It would explain the Huron, Algonquin and Iroquois. Could their neighbours, unaffiliated small tribes, compete against them?) I think that perhaps this might be a sign of failure in the rhizomal network. I imagine that things would only get to this point if A - the rhizomal structure had ALREADY become hierarchical, at least with a central organisation (perhaps there is a different form possible here, not rhizome, not hierarchy, but a series of nodes that agree, or are forced, to be led by a central leadership, each node still retaining its structure), and B - if the rhizomal organisation was permanent, which you may have suggested is not the case. What do you think? That last paragraph seemed pretty dense. I guess I should just read your book for a clearer explination 8) Reading? Aww, man. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Nene Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 02:01 PM |
Hey -- I'm gonna have to leave you boys to work this out, cos I'm outta town in a few minutes... but I thought I would throw a little tidbit out... "Matt" wrote: How do you propose/suppose people would be self-conscious of the importance of a rhizome network? .... On the not participating vs leaving tip, do you mean that the rhizome network is not a permanent institution but rather an ad-hoc and temporary one? If that is the case, is there a problem with a delay in mustering in the face of an immediate crisis? Does one, or do groups, need to start from scratch every time there is a conflict? Consider the rule of 150... A community/Tribe/Village is to Rhizome as an individual is to the group... Each individual node in the rhizome reacts to any given stimuli based upon thier own percieved best interest... so it takes virtually NO time for decisions to be made, and provides virtually NO mechanism for hierarchal control (unless individual participants actively seek a control structure). The key, as with intra-group relationships, is clarifying the validity of following a long term strategy (ie conceptual 'infinite iterations' of prisoner's dilemma) Janene |
| S Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 12:43 AM |
You know, you could see the insurgency in Iraq as a good example of rhizomatic military organization permeated by hierarchy. The structure is entirely decentralized, but particularly in the case of the foreign Jihadis, there is an extremely hierarchical ideology behind it. It's also, in the case of the jihadis, an example of rhizome structure used offensively. It's worth mentioning that most band-level hunter-gatherers (the original model of rhizomatic human organization?) had some sort of headman or other... I think takes a combination of factors--physical, cultural--to limit hierarchizing forces. In Hierarchy in the Forest Christopher Boehm (hopefully I remember that name correctly) details how band and tribe-level cultures have permanent systems of surveillance (he doesn't call it that, but that's what it amounts to) in place on guard against woud-be dominators. And it's easy to forget that we know rhizome or rhizome-like organizations must be fatally flawed--otherwise hierarchical cultures would never have emerged, as they did on every continent except Australia. Even hunter-gatherers can become extremely hierarchical given a sufficiently abundant resource-base, as the Pacific Northwest proves. I don't know if there's a point I'm arriving at... Tony, this is off-topic, but could you send me some info on the topics re. mycorriza? Also, on the issue of human species...could it not be said that, before civ--or even better, c. 5,000 years ago, once plenty of different styles of agriculture had grown up but before major civilizations had begun to expand--that in terms of their effects upon and interactions with the wider ecosystem there actually were many different species of humans? Is this what you were talking about? A population of herdsman is as different from a population of horticulturalists or of hunter-gatherers as bobcats are from coyotes from foxes, yet in both cases we have examples of all three occupying the same ecosystem (with no crossbreeding). Well...my God it's late and half of me forgets what I was getting at and the other half wonders if I'm writing only to remind myself that I still know anything about anything after so many months spent forgetting. Time to be done typing. -Steve Thomas |
| memeshredder Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 10:01 AM |
god damn it. why does my mouse have a back button? I just lost a huge fucking post. maybe it was for the better. http://www.mycorrhiza.org/EXPERTflat.PDF at least that link was still on the clipboard. fuck |
| Talvir Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 12:08 PM |
"memeshredder" wrote: god damn it. why does my mouse have a back button? I just lost a huge fucking post. maybe it was for the better. http://www.mycorrhiza.org/EXPERTflat.PDF at least that link was still on the clipboard. fuck Tony, I hate that! Yesterday I accidently quit my browser before I submitted a post. - Joe |
| JCamasto Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 12:44 PM |
Steve : Good to "hear" your voice! I gotta run for a few days - catch you later. -Jim |
| prometheus235 Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 12:49 PM |
Quote: And it's easy to forget that we know rhizome or rhizome-like organizations must be fatally flawed--otherwise hierarchical cultures would never have emerged, as they did on every continent except Australia. Even hunter-gatherers can become extremely hierarchical given a sufficiently abundant resource-base, as the Pacific Northwest proves. quite an overstatement. If rhizome and rhizome-like organizations are fatally and fundamentally flawed, there would be no existing tribes. by that rational, every tribe would have automatically emerged as a heirarchy at some point. for the 5-8 heirarchical civs that did emerge, how many more tribes or rhizomes were there? I would speculate that the ratio could be as high as 100 to 1, and at minimum a 10 to 1 ratio. R |
| S Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 05:12 PM |
The problem may be in the use of the phrase "fatally flawed." I understood this to mean "susceptible to hierarchization." I suspect that all human organizations in fact are open to hierarchy. Limited hierarchies exist in, I would say, every known "egalitarian" tribe. Egalitarianism and rhizome are in fact constantly under challenge by hierarchy. Throughout the vast majority of human history these hierarchizing forces were kept in check by constant surveillance, which surveillance was aided by physical necessity. That is, in most places, at most times, throughout human history hierarchies were simply unsustainable. This is the case too where rhizome organizations are emerging today--in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance; both insurgencies would have a centralized command and control structure but such an organization cannot physically stand up to the US military. My point is that humans are always capable of "going hierarchical" socially, and if this tendency combines with favorable material conditions, the will result in full-scale hierarchy (i.e., something resembling chiefdom/state organization). It's a permanent danger--it's something I think already emerging among the Derrick Jensen anarcho-blowshitup crowd--and I don't know the solution. |
| S Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 05:28 PM |
Good to hear from you too Jim--shoot me an email when you get back. |
| prometheus235 Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 07:31 PM |
I would agree with you Steve. There is indeed always a danger of heirarchy forming. Alot of humans have Allen's problem, from Ish. they are looking for a leader or lifelong teacher, rather than looking to themselves for the answers. I would think a good answer would be committment to smaller autonomous groups, with cultural constructs in the form of social mores, that restrain big men. are you familiar witht the Complete Dick Rule? if 12 humans decide that so-and-so is a complete dick, those same 12 summarily execute said dick via firing squad. That one is From canadian Dave Sim's comic "Cerebus", one of my big faves. R |
| S Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 11:46 PM |
Yeah, I agree with that. Negative feedback systems need to be built into the system at different levels--material, social, ideological--to keep hierarchy from emerging. Even then I still think it's a constant danger, and a danger we can't really escape. A little hierarchy even goes well with your rhizome, provided you can keep it in check before anyone has better access to the resources of life than anyone else. |
| chiggles Mon Jul 10th, 2006 at 12:54 AM |
Sorry if I've responded to anything that's been taken care of already, and also for the length of this. "Ghost" wrote: Is it possible that a "big man" could rise to prominence in such a structure? This is always a possibility. Though as people have been saying, many cultures not yet hierarchical have built in defense mechanisms against this sort of thing. Which might be all fine and dandy, if they were to live in a vacuum. Quote: I'm not saying that rhizome REQUIRES central leadership, quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that it could be problematic if it emerged. Not that I know of any full definition of rhizome, but I'd say that if hierarchy were to emerge, the rhizome you are thinking of would not have been a rhizome for some amount of time already. Quote: When we were speaking about social hierarchy, we figured that there has to be a transition. Some event in which the powerless big man suddenly gets his hands on coercive force and becomes powerfull. This may be possible if the different elements of the rhizomal structure begin to work together a-la complex division of labour. There will already be a military component available for take-over. Could a rhizomal structure adopt a form of the complex division of labour that would allow them to produce a surplus? I think it's doubtful that anywhere power came about where a big man "suddenly gets his hands on coercive force and becomes powerfull." I'm thinking of that quote by Rousseau (which I can't seem to find online right now), about the first leader or ruler coming about by him being the first clever enough to devise such a scheme, leading to rulership. What I've read and spoken to others about anthropologically and archaeologically, this appears to be a rather inaccurate and unscientific view. Not to be a hater. Division of labour in a rhizomatic structure to me also seems unlikely, at least to the point of specialization and permanent roles, as division of labour did not come about until cultivation had been around for hundreds of years, and year-round settlements are what people resided in. I'm curious as to what you mean by 'military component'. Do you mean permanent warriors, a separate, near permanent occupation (such as policemen today) or do you mean those capable of fighting, which most men in hunter-gatherer tribes were to take up this role when necessity decided so. As for surplus, I think Jeff Vail says rhizomes do not have them, but different bands of peoples have had different levels of surplus (guess this depends on what one considers surplus), all without being hierarchical (though this surplus may have increased their likelihood for becoming so). Quote: Basically, can the importance be shifted away from the autonomy of the individual groups to the cohesion of the whole? (I imagine the call being "everything is so decentralised and inefficient. Imagine what we could do if we acted as one.") There must be some way of doing so, otherwise how else would the current situation have arisen? The call for centralization is one that seems unlikely to sway many, so long as they are still self-sufficient as a group, and not too surplus based (after this changes, who knows?). The centralization and subsequent redistribution (as it may be called) seems to be less efficient, not only because there's one more step, it'll likely require a person whose job it is to do this (tax collector), an additional location in which these goods will be stored, a greater level of miscommunication (SNAFU or the 'telephone' game, Jeff Vail speaks of these in his 'Theory of Power'), less accountability, etc. "jeffvail" wrote: Let me start off by saying that I’m not an expert on Rhizome. I didn’t invent the metaphor—that honor goes to Gilles Deleuze Hey, don't forget about Felix Guattari! I don't believe that Deleuze came up with the concept on his own, and am pretty sure he didn't use the word 'rhizome' at least until he collaborated on the Kafka book with Guattari, though it's similar conceptually to what they used in Anti-Oedipus years before: the Body Without Organs. "Ghost" wrote: [..] people in a hierarchy aren't really self-conscious of their participation in that organisation. How do you propose/suppose people would be self-conscious of the importance of a rhizome network? I think hierarchy is dependant on the fact that its constituents are not entirely conscious or aware of what takes place (what goes on in the head of the leader being the most basic, possibly), if not from the very onset of hierarchy, then it at least produces this once hierarchy has been instituted. As for the case in a rhizome network, inequality is lesser, socialization is greater, and every day people are forced to be aware of their importance in the community, and likewise the importance of every person besides them, whether these roles seem redundant or not. Quote: I'm just wondering what, if any, conditions might... promote... the invasion of hierarchy. Do you speak of internal or external hierarchy invading the rhizome? Both seem unpredictable as to being able to predict when they'd occur, but seeing as there's no definite knowledge of how hierarchy first came about, speculationm seems spurious. External hierarchy would likely invade when they perceive the group as a threat (which could come about for any number of reasons), that they require the resources the group rests on, etc. Admitting certain new members into the rhizome could also prove problematic, especially if there are numerous of them. This has been a common problem with different political groups being taken over, co-opted by a larger group (or even a smaller number of very aggressive persons). Socialists for example running the anti-war group on the campus here. A Trotskyist group in the 60s, though in the minority, caused much disruption and change of direction within one of the most influential groups at the time, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). Quote: "jeff" wrote: First, nodes should not become dependent on other nodes OR the network (although this becomes problematic in the case of physical power and military defense). Care to explain? On the not participating vs leaving tip, do you mean that the rhizome network is not a permanent institution but rather an ad-hoc and temporary one? If that is the case, is there a problem with a delay in mustering in the face of an immediate crisis? Does one, or do groups, need to start from scratch every time there is a conflict? Dependence stands a chance at leading to hierarchy, when a person believes something is required in their life, threat of its loss may cause them to do crazy things. Seeing the rhizome as an institution is already seeing it as something more static, as opposed to seeing it as something which is more alive, something that is always becoming something else, yet renews itself as best as possible. There are similarities between Jeff Vail's concept of the rhizome and that of anarchist affinity groups (which dissolve themselves upon approaching hierarchy or inequality, when roles become too static). As for problems regarding a delay in mustering in an immediate crisis, sure there are. One of the differences between Vail's conception of the rhizome and the originators of it, Deleuze & Guattari, is that the originating image of it was less confrontational (at least compared to what I've read of Vail). D&G to me are less about conflict, more about flight, creating autonomous spaces (Temporary Autonomous Zones, anyone? [btw, hakim bey has to be highly influenced by these two dudes]). I don't know how well the rhizome will hold up against force, but we may very well see some conflicts of the swarm vs. the monolith some day in our lives. Quote: I think what I'm personally interested in is how hierarchy MIGHT develop in a rhizome and how we can, as you say, design against it. You and me both. "S is for Steve Thomas" wrote: My point is that humans are always capable of "going hierarchical" socially, and if this tendency combines with favorable material conditions, the will result in full-scale hierarchy (i.e., something resembling chiefdom/state organization). It's a permanent danger--it's something I think already emerging among the Derrick Jensen anarcho-blowshitup crowd--and I don't know the solution. I'm glad somebody else admits that the threat of hierarchy developing exists, essentially, always and everywhere. Out of curiousity though, who do you mean by the Jensen peoples, where can I read of them? I'm not trying to spark more of that ol' Jensen vs. Quinn ideological shit, just am not sure of whom (or is it what?) you mean. |
| This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org. |