The latest philosophical dictionary. The newest philosophical dictionary of Rhizome Deleuze
rhizome(French rhizome "rhizome") is one of the key concepts of the philosophy of poststructuralism and postmodernism. The rhizome must resist the invariable linear structures (of both being and thinking), which, in their opinion, are typical of classical European culture. Simply put, a rhizome is a labyrinth of meaning. The text is treated like a web. Chaosmos - the world is like chaos, there is no beginning and no end.
The rhizome has no beginning, no end, no center, no centering principle. The main properties of the rhizome are: (1) connection, (2) heterogeneity, (3) multiplicity, (4) insignificant gap, (5) cartography, (6) decalcomania.
Thinking must be absolutely free and develop according to the principle of a rhizome, i.e. the way a living plant develops: no one can predict with accuracy how it will be, although, of course, in the order of development of a plant there is its own logic encoded by its “species program”.
Doubt about the reliability of scientific knowledge has led postmodernists to the belief that the most adequate comprehension of reality is available only to intuitive - "poetic thinking". The specific vision of the world as chaos, which appears to consciousness only in the form of disordered fragments, was defined "postmodern sensibility".Postmodern sensibility- a sense of the phenomenon of culture / history / etc. not in one aspect, but contradictory, as in schizophrenia (from a lecture).
According to many researchers, the postmodern paradigm is characterized by a deliberate destruction of traditional ideas about the integrity, harmony, completeness of aesthetic systems, the erosion of all stable aesthetic categories, the rejection of taboos and boundaries. Thus, there can be no talk of creating - from a formal point of view - a certain set of rules for organizing a postmodern text. And yet, attempts to identify the main features of postmodernism have been made by researchers more than once. Consider some of the components of the postmodern paradigm:
decanonization all canons and all official conventions, ironic soul-searching;
rejection of the traditional "I", erasing personality, emphasizing the plurality of "I";
hybridization, the mutant change of genres, giving rise to new forms;
carnivalization as a recognition of the immanence of laughter, the "gay relativity" of objects, as participation in the wild disorder of life;
metalanguage game, a game of text, a game with text, a game with a reader, a game with supertext, theatricalization of the text;
Game development of Chaos;
intertextuality, reliance on the entire history of human culture and its rethinking;
pluralism cultural languages, models, styles used as equals;
two- or multi-level text organization, designed for an elite and mass reader at the same time, the use of genre codes of both mass and elite literature, scientific research, etc.; a combination of entertainment and super erudition;
focus on multiple interpretations text;
The phenomena of the author's mask, "author's death". The general concept of the death of the author goes back, in its original version, to the structuralist theory of textuality, according to which the consciousness of a person is completely and unconditionally dissolved in those texts, or textual practices, outside of which he is not able to exist. The idea that a person exists only in language, or, to be more correct, is able to express himself only through the stereotypes of generally accepted verbal and mental clichés imposed on him by his parents, school, environment, and then the ideological structures of social institutions, has become a generally accepted obsessive idéfix of the vast majority of avant-garde artists. advanced creative intelligentsia of the West.
principle of reader co-creation, creating a new type of reader;
Plurality of meanings and points of view;
Using Reception "double coding";
fundamental asymmetry, incompleteness, openness of the design;
Usage rhizome principle.
These features of the postmodern paradigm determined the polyvalent poetics of postmodernism, which is characterized by:
The emergence of new, hybrid literary forms;
Quotation-parody bi- and multilingualism, pastishization;
Fragmentation, collage, montage, use of a finished or dissected literary text;
rhizomatics (lack of a binding center);
Playing with "flickering" cultural signs and codes;
Travesty reduction of classical specimens,
irony and parody;
Two- and multi-level organization of the "two-address" text.
The main object of postmodernism is Capitalized text. Postmodernism is dominated by general confusion and mockery of everything, one of its main principles has become "cultural mediation", or quotation. Another fundamental principle of postmodernism is the rejection of truth. Truth in the concept of postmodern culture is "just a word, more important is not the meaning of this word, but its meaning, its etymology." Postmodernism is characterized by a “mystified vision” of reality: the world is a haven of chaos, pseudo-values and artifacts of mass culture prevail in it. Life is sterile, the personality is devastated. Reality is illogical, dual, therefore its development requires new means and forms of expression, a different poetics. Under these conditions, a new concept of the artistic text is gaining popularity: it becomes “limitless”, it is “absolute totality” and “there is nothing outside the text”.
1) Text- in general, a coherent and complete sequence of signs. Its study claims to discover a kind of "middle way" between the concreteness of literature and the abstractness of linguistics. The representative approach to text comprehension is based on such humanitarian phenomena as cognitive psychology, generative linguistics, microsociology, etc. Linguistic text theory focuses on studying the patterns of sentence combinations and the possibilities of macrostructural semantic interpretation of communicative texts.
2) Intertextuality- the concept of postmodern textology, articulating the phenomenon of the interaction of the text with the semiotic cultural environment as an internalization of the external. That is, each text has its own new fabric, woven from old quotes. Or to put it in a less poetic language, it is the presentation of one text in another in the form of quotations, plagiarism, illusions or allusions. At present, this concept is commonly used for the textual theory of postmodernism, supplemented by similar and clarifying terms.
3) Narrative language reference- a characteristic of a linguistic act, more precisely, the correlation of a verbal presentation. The word "narrative" is a concept of postmodern philosophy, fixing the procedural nature of self-fulfillment as a way of being of a narrative text.
4) language games- the concept of modern non-classical philosophy of language, fixing speech communication systems organized according to certain rules, the violation of which means destruction or going beyond them. The idea of language games lies at the very basis of the postmodern concept of the Reader as a source of meaning, because in the process of reading the reader, the text and the author are a single and endless field for the game of writing. It is the language game that is the sphere of true realization not only of the essence of language, but also of human essence.
Pilyugina Elena Vladimirovna Candidate of Philosophy, Director of the Representative Office of the Russian New University, Moscow [email protected] Phenomenology of the rhizome. rhizomorphic environments. The article provides a semantic-cognitive analysis of the nominative field of one of the key linguistic constructs of postmodern philosophy, the concept of rhizome;
rhizome references with coherent concepts of text, discourse, narrative, deconstruction, etc. are indicated; rhizomorphic phenomena of modern social life are revealed.
Keywords: rhizome, deterritorialization, decentration, spontaneity, nomadology, rhizomorphic environment The social reality of modernity, referred to as the reality of postmodernity, is ambivalently integral and diversified. noumenal, transcendent,
Integrity, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, phenomenal concretization as paradigmatic attributes determined any social environment, more precisely, any environment described and analyzed in the context of human existence and consciousness. Specificity and paradoxicality of references of modern social life
It manifests itself not in the fact that these are postmodern innovations, but in the fact that social reality, and with it
the principles of integrity and diversification are being transformed in postmodernity: it is diversification that qualifies as a transcendent sign of being, and integrity manifests itself purely phenomenally. Such integrity cannot be studied, only described.
We can only state its existence as a supersystem relatively independent of each other,
Synchronous with respect to each other, interactive, dynamic, spontaneously developing systems. It is impossible to speak of a structure of such integrity, since the structure in continuous changes, in fact, disappears; hence the question of availability
structure loses its meaning, annihilates. On the other hand, the sign character of the principle of consistency, understood as a set of relationships and connections (R. Barth),
“fluctuations” and “series” (M. Foucault), “outflows” and “lines” (J. Deleuze) are emphasized in every possible way. A fundamentally non-structural and extra-structural system of social reality is positioned as meta-unstable, decentralized and non-hierarchical. The integrity of being is determined not by the inner essence, but by external manifestations; such integrity is unstable, it manifests itself through dissipative processes and mechanisms of bifurcation, which are emphasized in synergetics and the theory of self-organization by I. Prigogine.
To a certain extent, an analogue of the concept of self-organization of "open non-equilibrium systems"
In postmodern philosophy,
the concept of the rhizome, formulated by J. Deleuze and F. Guattari. The concept of rhizome (along with discourse, text and narrative) refers to those postmodern linguistic constructs that are designed to designate and personify the phenomena of modern social reality and reality itself. These concepts explicate the characteristic phenomena of modernity, but they themselves manifest themselves phenomenally through various social formations, situations, and events. J. Baudrillard introduced the concept of “phenomenon” to designate such things, which are simultaneously related to noumena and phenomena. Accordingly, the identification of conceptual features of such
noumenons contributes to the discovery and awareness of social phenomena correlating with them.
The concept of “rhizome” (from the French rhizome “rhizome”) occupies a special place in this regard. On the one hand, the “citation index” of the term “rhizome” in the social sciences is significantly lower than other consonant postmodern terms (“text”, especially “discourse” and “narrative”, which laid the foundation for entire segments of social humanitarian knowledge - discourse studies, narratology). And the point here is not only in the originally biological meaning of the rhizome (in contrast to the originally purely linguistic meanings
text, discourse, narrative). J. Deleuze and F. Guattari also begin their reflections on the signs of the rhizome in the prism of linguistics and linguistic semantics, classifying “books” and their references with the “world”, but at the same time, emphasize that the manifestations of the rhizome “do not refer with necessity to a linguistic feature, various semiotic ways of coding are also found in “biological, political, economic links”, including not only signs, but also “statuses of concrete things”. less popular
The specified term in the glossary of social and humanitarian sciences is explained, in our opinion, by the fact that
conceptual image of a rhizome
more complex, ambiguous than cognitive
space
discourse or narrative. It has more connotative, emotionally evaluative components,
peculiar “additional dimensions” and “variables”, which makes it practically impossible to define the specified concept, and therefore significantly complicates the references of other concepts with it. Awareness of the noumenon of the rhizome is possible through the detection of signs of the rhizome in various social phenomena. It should be noted that the concept of “rhizome”, carefully perceived by the scientific community, is increasingly used in modern essays, political journalism, and even as a means of signifying and personifying artistic (including gaming), mass media phenomena [see, for example, 69]. According to J. Deleuze and F. Guattari, the noumenon and phenomenon of the rhizome are constituted in the following principles and presumptions: presumptions of dynamic (“flowing”) multiplicity (“consistency of multiplicity”), understood as a set of potential possibilities, “reproduction”, dispersion of reality; the presumption of convergence ("cohesion"), achieved through the noumenal homogeneity and phenomenal heterogeneity of the rhizomatic environment; presumptions of non-linear development ("anti-genealogy"); presumptions of decentration and deterritorialization, understood as arbitrary interactions and interpretations; principles of openness (“open rings”);
Processuality (“non-significant gap”); the principle of cartography in opposition to the “calculation” of “tree-like” hierarchical systems (systems of “roots”).
The rhizome "rhizome" appears as a spontaneous interweaving and interweaving of "streams" of probabilities, spontaneous formation and production of various "branches" "outflows" of being, a continuous circulation of possibilities ("intensities", "tensions"). rhizome
"indefinite probabilistic system". Rhizome understanding of social reality
suggests the discovery
properties
chaos (another successful linguistic neoplasm of J. Deleuze
], understood as the presence of flexible lines
directions of chaos, immanent creative potentialities of chaos methods of regulation. The rhizome is not chaotic, but chaotic; it is not absolute potential infinity, but actual multiplicity
reality. Social reality is a rhizome, and any social reality (rhizome and rhizomorphism of modern social phenomena is more obvious, but not innovative). In this regard, the rhizome phenomenally does not oppose the orderliness of the hierarchy of centralization, everything that J. Deleuze and F. Guattari focus in the images of the concepts of "root" or "tree-like structures". The authors of the rhizomatic vision of being emphasize this in every possible way: “the tree root and the rhizome canal are not opposed as two models”, primarily because centrist systems can arise as “offshoots” (some probabilities) of decentral
the roots are “pulled out” from the “rhizome”. The rhizome is opposed to "tree-like", centrist
noumenal systems, as a methodology for understanding and comprehending social reality; but even in this case there is no contradiction – there is only one model of reality, there are different approaches to its comprehension, different principles of signification, in which certain features are emphasized (“One and the same thing allows two ways of calculation and two types of regulation” ). That is, the rhizome and "tree-like" structures appear as "parallel worlds", but not in a spatial context, but in the prism of multiple dimensions, among which "time" and "space" are simply more familiar, or "significant" for us "as of a certain moment". Deleuze's slogans "grow rhizomes and never
rootsª, “to draw a line, and in no case to put an end to it” only emphasizes the necessity and legitimacy of the rhizomatic methodology for comprehending modern social reality (postmodern reality) as immanent in this reality. The biological origin of the term suggests
The original naturalness of the rhizome, which could be opposed
The artificiality of directed hierarchical order and centralization (culture), observed throughout human history, if it were not for the fundamental opposition of the rhizome of any opposition mentioned and promoted by Deleuze and Guattari. The rhizome is not the “diverse” opposed to the “one”, it is a multiple reality in which the “one” and the “diversity” merge and collapse as categories. Integrity and segmentarity, as well as unity in the rhizome, cease to oppose: the rhizome as integrity includes “lines of segmentarity”, the continuous spontaneous formation of deterritorializations, segmentations and stratifications; it is a unity consisting of multiplicities. (J. Deleuze compares such a system with the neural system of the brain).
Historically, there is a circulation from the potential multiplicity of the natural environment to an artificial (cultural) taxonomy, ordering and centralization, and then, through excessive “multiplication” (and segmentation) of artificial
to a new multiplicity, no longer natural, but social (superreal, unreal, virtual).
"Nomadic"
The approach opposed by the authors of "Rhizome" to the historical one assumes a multilinear vision of the world - the synthesis and convergence of parabolic, cyclical, spiral development, moreover, the lines of this development "endlessly refer one to the other". Rhizomatism manifests itself through "folds" that produce new branches of reality -
Unpredictable and unexpected social manifestations producing innovative rhizomorphic structures. The “wandering”, indefinite and ambiguous nature of such structures can be recognized through the presence of rhizomatic features, among which the most important are the fragmentation (segmentation) of integrity in autonomy and the convergence of autonomies into new (rhizomorphic) wholes (environments, or “plateaus”). Awareness of the rhizome space as a “plateau” emphasizes the principle of openness; it is a space “without end or beginning” (“Rhizome does not begin or end, it is always in the middle, between things, between being, intermezzo”). The rhizome phenomenon embodies
The extraordinary dynamics, the mobility of modern reality, but this is not progressive (and, of course, not regressive) dynamics; not vertical, but horizontal mobility: “a plateau” “stretches” and “expands” to infinity, without turning into infinity.
Deleuze and Guattari explain). The rhizome appears as a process of the formation of social reality, or, more precisely, a social reality in the process of continuous formation. The time continuum of the rhizome is the present; the past looks like a set of rhizome states, the future is probabilistic and hypothetical. In fact, the rhizome is in opposition to rationality, while including rationality. Hence, the references of the rhizome with the collective unconscious (archetypes) of K. Jung are quite legitimate, if we take into account all the archetypal plurality, already or not yet revealed. (Deleuze and Guattari, true to their orientation on pluralism and convergence, do not directly attribute the rhizome to the unconscious, but the congruence of the specified noumenon with “short-term memory” and the constant references to psychoanalytic technologies that they designate make such comparisons legitimate). At the same time, it would be wrong to reduce the rhizome
to the unconscious, since "the map does not produce the unconscious closed in itself, it constructs it". Thus, unlike the theorists of psychoanalysis, proceeding from the preamble of the unconscious, Deleuze and Guattari postulate equally probable intentions (paths, movements) in the rhizome: from the unconscious to sociality, from social and cultural dominants to the collective and then the individual unconscious. The rhizome appears as a coded and coding map, including unconscious manifestations. According to the theory of deconstruction by J. Derrida, linguistic constructs are derivatives of being, assimilating and focusing certain signs of being, transform being, primarily social, deconstruct according to certain models. Awareness of postmodern phenomena, denoted by linguistic neoplasms (constructs) of postmodern philosophy, is possible through references, interactions of such constructs, identification of their synchronous and asynchronous features and manifestations. ). In the context of what has been said, the rhizome is an immanent property of deconstruction that does not manifest itself in incarnation.
Interpretation of reality, but production of reality. (“The rhizome is production”). In this, it is asynchronous to the noumena “text” and “narrative”, which are focused on the interpretation of reality, and is synchronous to the discourse, which is called upon to actualize nominative acts, recreating a new reality.
The references of the rhizome with the postmodernist interpretation (primarily by R. Barth) of the “text” are evident in the image of the “book”, which is designed to “compose a rhizome with the world”
to map the world, and not to be a "tracing paper" of the world; “ensure the deterritorialization of the world.” “Book” and “world” (by R. Bart
“text” and “reality”, subsequently, by J. Brockmeyer and R. Harre, “narrative” and “culture”) are connected through “non-parallel evolution”: the book deterritorializes the world, the world reterritorializes the book, so that then it again deterritorializes itself in the world. In this context, the term “deterritorialization” is close to Barth’s “death of the author”: for a “book” as a “text”, authorship is just one of the “lines of expiration” of meanings, it does not really matter, since there are many authors (potentially “the whole world”, as well as an unlimited territory for the distribution of the “book” . There is a continuous coding, recoding, decoding - giving new, often non-obvious meanings. The consonances of text and rhizome are as follows:
decentration, multiple displacement, overlap, variation of elements; processuality (a text, like a rhizome, “cannot freeze motionlessly”, pluralism (a text, like a rhizome, “is inherent in plurality”, connotation as emotional tension (the text is “connected with pleasure”, interactivity and continuous interaction, (“every text is intertext…ª). But the text is the “fabric” of reality, and the rhizome is “connection”, “lattice”: the text “collects” (“folds”) meanings, and the rhizome “disperses” and “multiplies”. And if the language plays in the text, then in the rhizome the language “draws on itself, becomes helpless”: the essence is not in the production of meanings, but in the production of phenomena; the language is decentered, and any meanings turn out to be conditional, metaphorical. That is why J. Deleuze and F. Guattari use exclusively metaphors to represent (but not to analyze, which is simply impossible) rhizomes: “root”, “root”, “tracing paper”, “map”, in fact, “rhizome”, the more unexpected, paradoxical, the more accurate; true to their ideas, they strive to discover (and expose) the plurality of meanings in the semantics of words and statements that represent a changing reality; to break out of the dominants of previous designations by stating that “… imprecise expressions are absolutely necessary in order to describe anything accurately.” If the text is saturated with metaphors, then the rhizome itself is a metaphor. Summarizing the references of the text and the rhizome, it can be noted that the text is open to new meanings of reality; rhizome - new manifestations (forms) of reality.
Synchronous signs of rhizome and discourse are manifested in polyvariance, polymorphism, plurality, spontaneity of both phenomena. In the discourse, as in the rhizome, there is a “tendency of meaning branching”, a self-sufficient procedurality; self-development and self-disclosure of both discourse and rhizome occurs through “fluctuations”. The fundamental anonymity of discourse (“All discourses… unfold in the anonymity of a whisper”) is consonant with the deterritorialization of the rhizome: in both cases, the overcoming of boundaries is indicated.
transgression. In both phenomena, there is a transgressive breakthrough into openness.
meaning in discourse, form or situation in a rhizome.
The transgression of discourse is manifested in the discovery and constitution (often by the intentions of the discourse itself) of boundaries, in order to then overcome them (discourse as “overcoming an insurmountable limit”, and the transgression of the rhizome is expressed in indifference to the boundaries as such: they will simply disappear, since no significance is attached to them. Discourse is interactive and intersubjective; the rhizome is interactive and inter-being (“between being”). The intentions of discourse are more powerful, since “power ... nests in any discourse” . The intentions of the rhizome are more spontaneous and chaotic, since this space is “without the General”; nooba phenomena are treated as polyvalent. Discourse embodies and simulates reality - deconstructs; it is a means of deconstruction. The rhizome is positioned as a reality, a process and a result of deconstruction. The principle of discourse is polylogue, diversity; in the rhizome, the demarcation between the one and the many is destroyed (“pluralism equals monism”). Nevertheless, it seems that it is the semantic potentialities of the linguistic construct of discourse that are most consonant with the rhizome, first of all, because in both noumena and their phenomenal incarnations, the key position is the connection between signs, meanings, phenomena, subjects, social formations. In fact, the rhizome should be positioned as a metadiscourse, as a space for the realization of discourses.
At the same time, the rhizome, which is always in the present (in the "now")
Manifests himself
As the time of realization of narratives. The references of the rhizome in the narrative are as follows: both phenomena “have an open and fluid character”; Both are based on metaphor. But if the narrative metaphors “anthropomorphize” social reality, bringing, in the words of F.R. Ankersmit, the world “in line”, making it “familiar”, allowing us “to adapt to the surrounding reality and become our own for it”, then the metaphor of the rhizome expresses the already indicated above “ the helplessness of the languageª, and hence the helplessness of the individual, society in the face of the spontaneity and unpredictability of the Mirarism. Narratology theorists J. Brockmeyer and R. Harre, similarly to J. Deleuze and F. Guattari, emphasize the “anti-historicism” of their own concepts. But in the narrative concept of history, “historicism” is opposed to “historicism”, in which any event (“history”) reveals meaning (meanings) through the “final” (history as today's interpretation of past events). The concept of rhizome manifests opposition to historical science as such. According to Deleuze and Guattari, history is “written by sedentary peoples,” with their penchant for hierarchy and taxonomy; instead, they propose a “nomadic”, “anti-state” and anti-hierarchical approach, in which “deployment…, phrases disperse, collide and coexist… and the whole typography starts to dance…ª . That is, history appears not even as a narrative “interpretation of interpretations”, but as a series of direct impressions of events; as a “memoir” history, fixing various intentions and “intensities” – “breaks, breaks, progresses”. In this case, “thought itself becomes a nomad”, freeing itself from the dominants of cultural and social perception, acquiring the character of “externality” (violation, or, more precisely, ignoring any patterns and attractors). One might get the impression that a narrative founded on intentionality (a kind of attractor) opposes the rhizome, but this is not entirely true: the intentionality of the narrative is predominantly of external origin, more certain, these are probabilistic paths of development; rhizome intentionality, rather internal, more chaotic and spontaneous are possible ways of development. The intentionality of the narrative is comparable to the stresses in the words of the Indo-European languages; the intentionality of the rhizome, or according to Deleuze and Guattari, "intensity",
as accents of the rhizomatic state of being, are similar to the rise and fall of tone in the sentences of some oriental languages (for example, Japanese). That is, again there is no contradiction,
only different ways of development, accentuation and marking of reality. In this regard, the arguments of Deleuze and Guattari about the rhizome of civilizations and ethnic formations are indicative. The theorists of rhizomatics do not doubt that “the tree” dominates “over Western reality and all Western thought from botany to biology, all philosophy…” . The West is an "agricultural culture", gravitating toward systematicity, structure, centrality and hierarchy. (The terms "agricultural" or "nomadic" culture in this case fix not so much real phenomena as the noumenal potentialities of society). All Western culture, its achievements from science to politics and economics, is a “tree system”. The authors of A Thousand Plateaus are more careful when attempting to quantify Eastern civilization or a particularly American culture. On the one hand, there is an opposition to the civilization of the East with its installation on the immanence of the civilization of the West to the world with its principle of primacy over the world, the search for the transcendental, with “transcendence so dear to the heart of the West” . The horticultural “orticulture” of the East, even of the bureaucracy that exists there as well (“the root”, by definition, system) giving the appearance of “channels” through which social information is distributed and the stratification of the social environment is carried out, is positioned as opposed to the weights of the statuses of the bureaucratic system of the West, which determines
Clear positions of individuals and groups in society. As an example of a spatial civilizational rhizome, Deleuze and Guattari cite Oceania;
They present China as an example of rhizomatism in the economy. (At the same time, it is compared “with the grass that breaks through everywhere, in spite of any obstacles, and which always has the “last word”).
The reflections of the creators of the rhizome concept about the specifics of cultures make it possible to see the modern interaction of civilizations within the framework of the globalization process with all its features, prospects and difficulties in a completely different context. Indeed, the “higher” and “lower” layers in the East, performing the necessary social functions, were designated, rather, as “segmentation lines” of social reality, as paths (“tao”), the likelihood of social existence. And this phenomenon is typical not only for modern China, but also
for ancient China with its unique mobility for the ancient world. Education, the courts, the army were the channels for the "flow" of stratification and segmentation of society. Even in ancient India, with its, at first glance, rigid system of stratification - castes, consecrated and meaningful in the context of samsara (noumenal and phenomenal connection of everything with everything), segmentation becomes fluid and changeable. The rhizomatic features of Eastern civilization, which today are woven into a rigid and definite canvas of Western culture, make the process of globalization unpredictable and ambiguous (in all dimensions: economic, political, cultural); moreover, if, in the end, “grass wins”, then doesn’t this explain the current absorption by China (producing “everything and everything”, copying any world brands and saturating the world market with its products) of the world economy; Is it not here that the “lines” of the political influence of Islamic culture are hidden, using the technique of segmented attacks on the outposts of Western civilization; Isn't this the understanding of the ubiquitous influence of "neo-religious" currents ("Unification Church" of Sun Myung Moon, etc.)? it is an extra-ethical system in which “good and bad cannot be anything other than the results of active choice (selection)…ª And if so, what can oppose the West to the rhizomatic “weeds” of non-Western cultures, which in the context of a different mentality appear as the most civilized phenomena? A special place in the phenomenology of the rhizome is given to America, which unites everything “simultaneously in the tree and the channel, in the root and the rhizome”, forming a kind of “core and mechanism of inversion”:
from “rhizome” to “root” (for example, English-speaking reculturation and assimilation of indigenous Indian cultures) and from “root” to “rhizome” (modern “Mexicanization” of North America, which S. Huntington first spoke about in his work on American identity).
At the same time, it should be noted that, true to their position of presenting a rhizomatic approach to reality (“We are writing this book as a rhizome”, Deleuze and Guattari avoid rigid definitions by not directly positioning Eastern civilization or American culture as exclusively rhizomatic. Furthermore,
emphasize that "any geographic distribution" "is a dead end"; “in the rhizomes, the rhizomatic processes of the roots, there are treelike nodes…ª, and in the “transcendent system of trees…there are anarchic deformations” . In the context of the rhizomatic approach, the concept of the authors appears as the already mentioned map, on which
readers themselves look for the “places” they need, revealing in them (and giving them)
One value or another. Obviously, at the same time, readers face certain difficulties caused by the dominant predestinations of the culture of the episteme, and above all, the Western-style culture that underpins all science and education - another reason why the rhizomatic approach is used with great caution in the scientific community: it is likely that that instead of rhizomatics, focused on recognizing the “rhizome” (“tuber”) of society, we will get a new taxonomy, where centralization is only covered by the illusion of multiplicity. Such are “radicular” or “beam-like” systems that reject unity phenomenally, but not noumenal, “in fact, do not break with dualism, with the complementarity of subject and object”, transforming the world, material existence into chaos, but introducing some noumena as transcendental “rods” of being (artificial ways of regulating the natural), which creates “chaosmoskoreshka in the place of the cosmos-root”. This is just an inversion of "tree-like" systems, pseudorhizomes. In essence, it is never completely clear whether the subject (society) is in the space of a rhizome or a pseudorhizome; only some indirect signs make it possible to detect and distance not rhizomatic (inherent), but only rhizomorphic (existing like) social phenomena and formations. This is
should be borne in mind, succumbing to the temptation to use in the analysis of certain social phenomena such a vague, amorphous and, at the same time, such a potentially meaningful concept as "rhizome". ), and the task of the researcher is to show “where in the rhizome the phenomena of massification, bureaucracy, leadership, fascisization, etc. are formed, which lines, no matter what, continue to exist even while remaining underground, gradually continuing to create the rhizome” .
It is in the prism of such attitudes that we propose to briefly analyze some modern studies of rhizomatic and rhizomorphic phenomena and, in part, the phenomena themselves. Since the rhizome is qualified as a convergence of the one and the many (unity in the multitude and the multitude in the unity), the use of the rhizomatic approach is justified both in the study of macrosocial phenomena (for example, globalization) and in identifying the specific behavior of individuals in small groups (for example, youth subcultures or terrorist groups) [see 9.20]. Rhizomatics as a methodology for describing social reality makes it possible to detect “overlay” and connection of macro and micro phenomena; realize the congruence of, say, globalization and terrorism, the development of mentality and the increase in ethnic conflicts, progress in mass media, Internet technologies and the activation of subcultural phenomena. Moreover, in fact, all the listed social phenomena are intertwined, “flow” into each other, appearing as “branchings” of modern social reality. Anticipating the discussion about the phenomenology of the rhizome in modern society, we emphasize that certain social phenomena exhibit the most significant properties and characteristics of the rhizome, but are not reduced to them, therefore, as a rule, they can be presented not as rhizomatic phenomena, but as “rhizomorphic environments” - spaces in which rhizomatic characters circulate. The rhizomatic approach in this case is positioned as a strategy for discovering, describing such environments, but also the existence and interaction in such spaces. The phenomena that reveal consonances with the postmodern interpretation of the concept of "rhizome" include, first of all, globalization and its accompanying social processes (multiculturalism, terrorism, etc.). The phenomenon of globalization, qualified as one of the most significant signs (and challenges) of modernity, has been analyzed and analyzed by many researchers [see, for example, 2224]. As a rule, such an analysis involves listing certain features that fix the design of a single economic, technological, political, communicative, and possibly, in the future, cultural space, as well as identifying the determinations of the globalization process and its prospects. At the same time, the naturalness and historical conditionality of globalization are no longer in doubt. But, despite the attempts to consider the phenomenon of globalization in dynamics, having identified the historical prerequisites for this phenomenon, there is an impression of the discreteness of the history of globalization, a kind of gap between the past (prerequisites), the present (difficulties and contradictions of modern globalization) and the future (prospects). “A stumbling block” in the analysis of the globalization process is the antinomy between the unification of economic, political life, and simply the everyday existence of people who today use the same objects, forms of life, and cultural segmentation, even diversification, which contributes to the growth of confrontations and ethnic conflicts. As a result, the problem of coherence of globalization and the principles of postmodern society is revealed: it is obvious that the globalization process is both immanent to postmodernity (if only because it is actualized in this society) and oppositional (if only based on the fact that globalization unifies the social environment, and a sign of postmodern is segmentation). These and other problems facing researchers of globalization, in our opinion, are caused, among other things, by the fact that what is happening is considered purely phenomenal, as a set of certain facts and situations, outside the semantic contexts and noumenal prerequisites of globalization. In this regard, reflections on globalization by one of the theorists of postmodernism and poststructuralism, J. Derrida, are indicative, pointing to the noumenal prerequisites
inconsistency of the phenomena of the globalization process: the term "globalization" goes back to the English "globalization", obviously associated with the concept of "globe" (technical means, material source, spatial, external); meanwhile, even the most inexperienced defenders of globalization usually mean by it the context that is hidden in the French analogue of the specified term, “mondialisationª (from the French “mondeª“ world ª ), which can be translated as “world formationª. Thus, contradictions in the understanding (nominal meaning) of globalization become the preamble to the contradictions of the phenomenon of globalization. Globalization, understood as "mondialisationª, appears as a real "becoming of the world by the world" ("mondialisationdemondeª"). But the French “mondeª, like the Russian word “world” (the English equivalent is “worldª” and “peaceª at the same time”) suggest two semantic “dimensions”: spatial (world as a universe) and social (peace as brotherhood, harmony). The semantics of the Anglo-American concept of “globalization”, which has become widespread, involves the establishment, first of all, of external uniformity; such globalization proceeds initially along the line of techno-economic universalization, like westernization. But, “awakening” and activating (mostly through expansion) non-Western peoples, including them in the world community, the West stimulated their development (albeit guided by its purely private interests) . As a result, having become full-fledged players on the world stage, the non-Western world is increasingly asserting its right to understand and implement globalization, sometimes in an extremist form, as anti-globalism, etc. Proceeding from the naturalness and conditionality of the objective reasons of the globalization process, we believe that such “statements” do not denotate opposition to globalization as such, but propagate the possibility of other (non-Anglo-American) interpretations, branchings of globalization processes, fixing not only external universalization, but affecting the deep civilizational foundations of mankind. Marking such interpretations as “non-Western” does not mean at all that they do not find support in the West: there is a “shattering” and dispersion of Western civilization itself and, at the same time, a convergence of its principles with the foundations of other cultures; this, in fact, is the manifestation of the global universalizing process. Globalization, according to J. Derrida, is "the formation of the world": an external continuous spontaneous process of discovery and awareness, first of all, of internal unity. Marking such globalization as a “rhizomorphic environment” means actualization through rhizomatic principles and features: plurality and, at the same time, convergence of “ways”, ways of globalization; oppositions of internal, noumenal (cultural, ethnic, mental) heterogeneity, heterogeneity and external, phenomenal, unity (through material and technological content); procedurality, understood as the congruence of the present, past, future; non-linearity, continuous formation (“outflowª) of flows of “intensities” (in which the “Anglo-American wave” appears as the first, perhaps the most powerful, but only one of the branches of reality); coherence of the subjective and the objective: the more intense globalization (as cultural convergence and social interaction), the brighter the “self” (of the individual, society) is expressed, the greater the objective attraction to segmentation. The fundamental spontaneity and disorganization of rhizomorphic environments makes the process of organization and globalization processes impossible. (We believe that any statements about the necessity and possibility of "globalization organization" are exclusively declarative). One can only predict the probability of certain events and their consequences and, in the event that the forecast turns out to be correct, be able to “cut off” dangerous “branches” in time. But at the same time, be prepared for the fact that “cutting off” in a rhizome “growing from the middle” does not always mean “destruction” and does not necessarily improve the situation: in place of some “weeds”, others may appear, or the same ones, but in a modified ( "mutated" form. For example, terrorism is one of the manifestations of the rhizomatic properties of globalization, which was convincingly shown by Roger Griffin, who analyzed the right-wing fascist associations as rhizomorphic “group-skulls”. At the same time, with equal justification, civil society can also be presented as a rhizomorphic formation. Signs of rhizomorphism are also found in other social formations that construct modern society (informal youth associations, networks of neo-religious organizations, etc.) By themselves, all these social phenomena are “neither good nor bad”: the rhizome is non-ethical, but natural, just as like, say, the universe, nature, mind, and other similar universals. To eliminate "good" and "bad", "useful" or "useless" in rhizomatic and rhizomorphic phenomena means to narrow the possibilities of their understanding and, consequently, orientation in society. Instead, it seems important to emphasize the connection and congruence of such phenomena. Thus, globalization produces various “group-study” formations (their acquisition of a political, extremist status, or positioning them as indifferent to politics is a matter of arbitrary, often spontaneous choice); “Groupcular” formations are phenomenally opposed to global processes, assuming that they defend the “selfhood” (understood, for example, as individuality by youth non-formals or as an ethnic “specialness” by Islamist associations) and, in fact, often claim to globalization more significant – noumenal, universalizing not only existence , but the essence (personality, society). Noumenal confrontation (theses, slogans) can also turn into a phenomenal unity: terrorists find support in the outposts of universalization and globalization designated by them, and maturing “informals” are quite adequately included in society. Paradoxical as it may sound, the specificity of isomorphic formations is not in their “specialness” (and opposition to the universal, universal and universalizing), but in their ability to mimicry, therefore they are “ubiquitous” and can “penetrate those gaps that are found in the political, and more widely, social systemª. Occupying the “social niches” that arise in the process of the development of society, rhizomorphic formations can also play a “linking” role, but they can turn into “cancer tumors”, absorbing and destroying the system that gave rise to them. According to Griffith, various “polycratic movements and socio-cultural shifts” (renaissance, modernism, decadence), social campaigns (feminism, “new age”, anti-globalism, socio-ecological movements), even punk and hip-hop music, obviously, the list can be continued . The common thing is that rhizomorphic formations “do not behave like a single organism, having, like a tree, the main root, leaves, stems, beginning and end, well-defined internal and external parts.” On the contrary, they look like an intricate root system of herbaceous and root-bearing plants, demonstrating “multiple sources and beginnings that intertwine and connect with each other.” Marking certain social phenomena as rhizomorphic, we are far from declaring that “everything is a rhizome”; the positioning of modern social phenomena as rhizomorphic only indicates the relevance of certain features of the postmodern social space. Nevertheless, when analyzing the references of social phenomena with a postmodern "rhizome" in modern research, it is necessary to pay attention to two more layers of the identified "rhizomorphic environments" (congruent to the phenomenon of globalization): mentality and the Internet. The rhizomatic potencies of some mentalities, as mentioned above, are already denoted by Deleuze and Guattari. The temptation to “continue the series” of Oriental and American cultures, designated by them as “rhizomorphic”, with the Russian episteme, can probably fall into any person who is at all familiar with the culture and history of Russia. [See, for example, 2628]. Indeed, practically all the previously identified signs and presumptions of the rhizome are found in the analysis of the Russian mentality: autochthonous plurality, pluralism and convergence of its constituent potencies and accidents; spontaneity and outward illogicality, unpredictable "turns in history"; synthesis and superimposition of the noumenal and phenomenal, as a result of which, often, nominative images “create reality”; “nomadic”, spasmodic nature of history, interspersed with “ups” and “falls”, and a Russian character prone to adventures, sacrifice, “partisanism” and “Pugachevism”. In the manifestation of such features, Russian culture is close, paradoxically, to American culture, presenting itself as a synthesis of “root” and “rhizome”, centralization and decentralization, orderliness, hierarchy, and spontaneity, anarchy and deterritorialization. At the same time, Russian (in our opinion, the definition of “Russian” is more adequate) culture also looks like an inversion of American, since, firstly, American history was constructed and constituted by European (Western) cultural “infusions” into an initially non-Western environment, and the Russian mentality was formed as consistency of permanent oriental influences
Pro-Western culture of Ancient Russia. In addition, American rhizomatism manifests itself mostly in spatial dimensions (it is significant, for example, that the capital of the United States, Washington, is neither the leading economic center of the country, nor the most densely populated metropolis, and in general, there is no such "single center"). The rhizomatism of the Russian mentality manifests itself more in a temporal context: “the place of the capital” periodically changed in time, in history. But even in this case, decentration occurs: the capital in Russia played the role of the center rather conditionally, which, for example, P. Zarifullin draws attention to: “Moscow is not at all the center of Russia, and ... Russia simply does not have a center ...ª. In fact, even the capture of Moscow in the Patriotic Wars was by no means defined as “the end of history”; on the contrary, the war, as a rule, entered a new phase, turning into a truly nationwide opposition to the invaders, since, not being a phenomenal center, Moscow can be positioned as one of the noumenal “nodes” connecting the eastern and western “roots” in the Russian episteme. Nevertheless, we believe that the definition of the Russian mentality as unambiguously rhizomatic does not stand up to criticism, moreover, it is even dangerous, since it can become a field for the formation of nominatives of nationalist groupuscular formations of a rhizomorphic nature. In addition, the presumptions of rhizomatic methodology will be violated: not to create rigid demarcations and definitions. There is always a possibility in a rhizome that it can “turn against itself”, so rhizomatics should be used carefully, not absolutizing. The references of certain social phenomena with a rhizome do not simply fix certain signs or appear as some kind of “mind game”, but help to navigate situations and events. Whether we analyze globalization processes or segmentation phenomena in society, the main challenge that a person faces today is the problem of existence in an endlessly evolving world. Rhizomatics allows us to identify some of the “pitfalls” of this world, the dynamics and complexity of which only increase with time
The Internet is positioned by modern researchers as the most coherent rhizome phenomenon in the world of continuous formation, globalization, universalization and segmentation. There is no need to enumerate in detail the rhizomatic principles and properties immanent in the Internet: they are quite obvious, and a number of studies have already been devoted to this [see, for example, 29]. The rhizome metaphor turned out to be so consonant with the global electronic information environment that, probably, only some elitism associated with the origin and philosophical “reset” of the term carried out by Deleuze and Guattari is still the reason that this trope has not replaced other popular metaphors of the Internet (“worldwide webª, "global village", "electronic agora", "cyberspace", "electronic frontier".
The heuristic nature of the rhizome as a metaphor for the Internet is manifested not only in the fact that all the rhizomatic features identified above are easy to detect in this environment even for a novice who has just plunged into it, but also in the fact that the tropology of the term “rhizome” is unusually dynamic, like a dynamic virtual information space: both are constantly saturated with new meanings, appear in new perspectives. In a way, the rhizome of the Internet is a kaleidoscope of meanings, texts, subjects, groups, relationships, connections. The key principle of constituting the Internet as a rhizome is the connection – “everything with everything” and “everyone with everyone”. In fact, the rhizome embodies the “spirit” of the Internet, and the Internet appears as the most vivid manifestation of rhizomatism in modern society.
In this context, the Internet assimilates all the problems of rhizomatic realization and understanding of being. Thus, the actual problem of the possibility and necessity of regulating (and hence structuring) the information of Internet resources, for example, the current tactic of closing a number of sites suspected of disseminating information dangerous to children, gives rise to a whole “tangle” of questions, such as: does this not contradict the essence of the Internet as a matter of principle? open space? Will the first attempts at regulation be the preamble to censoring the Internet? Will the essence of the information environment be preserved as a “plateau”, where the principle of deterritorialization has always operated? But even more important, in our opinion, the question is not even the legitimacy of such regulation, but the ability of real society to regulate the virtual social information space. (And this is how modern researchers position the Internet as, first of all, a social environment. Therefore, real social relations can be replaced by virtual ones: the Internet acts as an “identical to natural” artificial substitute for society). Can the tactics of “pinpoint” regulation turn into a strategy of “cutting off” undesirable branches of the information rhizome? And is it necessary? Obviously, these and other rhizomatic problems of the Internet are becoming a real challenge to the real society; their decision is procedural and, as in “narrative history”, is determined by the “final”: only by seeing the results and consequences of such decisions, we will understand how correct they were. The case is that life is carried out “here and now” and, based on the recursiveness of consciousness and action, “everything we say or think has consequences in the way we live” That is, conscious strategies can direct the flow of history in totally unpredictable course. We have to talk about the rhizome of the human consciousness itself, capable of generating “monsters”, which, in turn, can become deadly for the system as a whole. Whether these monsters are real or not is not important; it is important to perceive them as real.
And yet, the most important attractor of consciousness and culture is the setting for positive prospects. In an intensively changing world, a person creates concepts immanent to this world, constructs that allow him not only to describe, clarify for himself the phenomena of being, but also to survive, since clarification contributes to detection; “the invisible” becomes “visible”, and there arises the possibility of adequate orientation in the spatio-temporal continuum of society. That is, in order to overcome the limits (“to transgress”, one must first “manifest” these limits. “The rhizome teaches us to move through the “rough terrain” of our being…, turns the circle into a polygon. Probably, in the course of time “other phenomena of society will appear” in which the “codes” of the rhizome will be deciphered. The concept of rhizome is just beginning to develop cultural and social space, deterritorializing it, overcoming noumenal (semantic, linguistic, cultural) and phenomenal (political, economic, social) barriers – transgressing. According to J. Deleuze and F. Guattari, “the culture of the rhizome” can become a kind of “smorgasbord”: everyone will find everything they want in it. The rhizomatic approach
is positioned in this regard as a strategy for detecting and describing rhizomatic features and rhizomorphic environments, but also the existence and interaction in such spaces. The essence of rhizomatic analysis is not to understand (a book, text, concept), but to use them as a mechanism, a kind of "encryption machine" with which you can encrypt, decrypt and add "codes" in the information environment and social reality (“The book” is a means of adding codes and “increasing the valency of being”). The concept of rhizome plays the role of a noumenal “litmus” of the phenomena of postmodern social existence.
Links to sources: 1. Bart R. From work to text// Selected works: Semiotics: Poetics. -M.: Progress, 1989 2. Foucault M. The will to truth beyond knowledge, power and sexuality. Works of different years. M., 1996.3.
Deleuze J., Guattari F. Capitalism and Schizophrenia: A Thousand Plateaus.
Paris.//trans.sfr.Baudrillard J. Simulacra and simulation //Internet resource. Access mode: http://exsistencia.livejournal.com/ Date of access: 22.01.136.Rusakova O.F., Rusakov V.M. PRdiscourse: Theoretical and methodological analysis. Yekaterinburg: UrORAN, Institute of International Relations, 2008. –340 p. game “Rizomª//http://www.ryzom.com/ru/index.htmlDate of access: 01/22/139. Griffin R. From slime molds to rhizome: an introduction to the theory of the groupuscular right//The tops and bottoms of Russian nationalism: (Sat. articles) / comp.: A. Verkhovsky. -M.: Center "Sovaª", 2007. S.223254.10. Deleuze J., Guattari F. What is philosophy. M., St. Petersburg, 199811. Jung K.G. On the archetypes of the collective unconscious., M., 200512. Derrida J. Letter and difference. Per. from fr. Ed. V. Lapitsky. St. Petersburg: Academic project, 2000, 430 p. 13. Bart R. From work to text// Selected works: Semiotics: Poetics. M., 1989.14. Foucault M. The will to truth beyond knowledge, power and sexuality. Works of different years. M., 1996. 15. Postmodernism. Encyclopedia, Mn., 200116. Bart R. Selected Works: Semiotics. Poetics. M., 1994 17. Brockmeyer J., HarreR. Narrative: problems and promises of one alternative paradigm // Questions of Philosophy, 2000, No. 3, p.294218. Ankersmit F.R. History and tropology: the rise and fall of metaphor. M.: ProgressTradition, 2003 19. Huntington S. Who are we? Challenges of American identity. M., 200420. Levikova S.I. Youth cultures and associations//http://www.polisportal.ru/index.php?page_id=51&id=161Date of access: 01/22/1321.
In this regard, we are in tune with the idea of A.P. Grechko: "postmodern micromethodology" brings together the micro and macro levels of people's social life: see Grechko P.K. Conceptual models of history: a guide for students. M.: Ed. Logos, 1995, p.4 –144 p.
22. Derrida J. Globalization. World. Cosmopolitanism. Per. from fr. D.Olshansky//Cosmopolis.2004.No.2p.12514023.
Globalization and culture: an analytical approach. St. Petersburg. Janus, 200324. Mamonova V.A. Multiculturalism: diversity and multitude.//CredoNew, No. 2, 200725. Inozemtsev V.L. Westernization as globalization and “globalization” as Americanization//Problems of Philosophy. No. 4, 200426.
The example of Russia is even more than archetypal, M. Borozenets rightly believes: see Borozenets M. From archeomodern to archeocracy//Internetresurs. Access mode: http://pravaya.ru/look/20222 Date of access: 01/22/1327. Pushkar A.I. The Russian Idea in the Socio-Cultural Continuum (Genesis and Actual State): dissertation….cand. Phil. Sciences. Kazan, 2004, 126 p.; Borzenets M.
28. Zarifulin's reflections are interesting, although somewhat controversial, positioning the Moscow metro as a metaphor for the “flat”, rhizomatic nature of the Russian people as opposed to the “mountainous” Caucasian one / / Zariffulin P. Russian Rhizoma against the Caucasian Center. Structural ethno-psychological analysis of explosions in the Moscow metro topic./Emelin V.A. Rhizome and the Internet// 30. A detailed analysis of the metaphors of the Internet is carried out by A.E. Voiskunsky. And, although the rhizome is not in his list, the rhizomatic principles and properties (deterritorialization, network system, mapping) of the Internet are also mentioned). See Voiskunsky A.E.//Questions of Philosophy, No. 11, 2001, p.6479
31. Maturana, H. R. Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument/ H. R. Maturana// The Irish journal of psychology. –1988., p. 77 32.DeleuzeG, GuattariF. MillePlateaux, 1980, 645p.33. Sharkov V. Notes on rhizomatic logic.//Internet resource. Access mode: http://www.kryoninternational.com/html/Articles.htm Date of access: 22.01.13
PilyuginaElena VladimirovnaThe candidate of philosophical sciences, director of representation of the Russian new university, MoscowPhenomenology of the rhizome. The article contains a semanticcognitive analysis of the nominative of one of the most keylinguistic constructs of postmodern philosophy is the concept of the rhizome; is denoted by references the rhizome with a coherent concepts of the text, the discourse, the narrative, the deconstruction, etc.; are revealed phenomena such the rhizome of modern social life. Key words: the rhizome, a deterritorization, decentration, spontaneity, nomadology, rhizomemorphic inhabitancy
(fr. rhizome - rhizome) - the concept of postmodern philosophy, fixing a fundamentally non-structural and non-linear way of organizing integrity, leaving open the possibility for immanent autochthonous mobility and, accordingly, the realization of its internal creative potential of self-configuration. The term "rhizome" was introduced into philosophy in 1976 by Deleuze and Guattari in a joint work Rhizome - in the context of the development of the basic principles of the nomadological project of postmodernism, founded on a radical rejection of the presumption of a constant gestalt organization of being .
The concept of "Rhizome" expresses a fundamental postmodern attitude to the presumption of the destruction of traditional ideas about the structure as semantically centered and stably defined, being a means of designating a radical alternative to closed and static linear structures, suggesting a rigid axial orientation. Such structures are semantically conjugated by Deleuze and Guattari with the metaphor of "root" fundamental to classical European culture, differentiating into proper "radical" or "core" ("system-root"), on the one hand, and "fibrous" or "beam-shaped" (" spine system") - on the other. The organizational principles of these systems are conceived in nomadology as different from each other (first of all, according to the criterion of the mechanisms of their evolutionary unfolding), however, the typological commonality of these structures is their characteristic conjugation with the semantic figure of depth, which metaphorically represents in the context of the Western mentality the metaphysical presumption of the linear unfolding of procedurality. (deepening) and meaning (deepening into the problem) .
In contrast to any kind of root organization, the rhizome is interpreted not as a linear "rod" or "root", but as a radically different "tuber" or "bulb" from the roots - as a potential infinity implicitly containing a "hidden stem". The fundamental difference is that this stem can develop anywhere and take on any configuration, because the rhizome is absolutely non-linear: "the world has lost its core" (Deleuze and Guattari). The fundamental property of the rhizome, therefore, is its heteronomy while maintaining integrity: it is "a semiotic link like a tuber in which the most diverse types of activity are compressed - linguistic, perceptual, mimetic, gestural, cognitive; language itself, its universality does not exist, we see only a competition of dialects, dialects, jargons, special languages" - as if "rats wriggle one on top of the other" (Deleuze and Guattari).
This polymorphism, which distinguishes the rhizome from the structure, is ensured by the absence not only of the unity of the semantic center, but also of the centering unity of the code. The logic of the root is the logic of rigid vector-oriented structures, while R. (in the context of the postmodern rejection of logocentrism) is modeled as a non-equilibrium integrity (in many respects similar to non-equilibrium environments studied by synergetics), which is not characterized by the presence of organizational orders and is distinguished by permanent creative mobility . In this case, the source of transformations is not causing from outside, but the immanent instability (nonfinality) of R., due to its energy potential of self-variation: according to Deleuze, R. is "neither stable nor stable, but rather "metastable" ... Endowed with potential energy."
Thus, it can be argued that rhizomorphic environments have an immanent creative potential for self-organization, and in this respect they can be assessed not as cybernetic (subject to the commands of the "center"), but as synergistic. A perfect illustration of this is the text of E. Ionesco, programmatic for postmodernity, "The Tragedy of Language": "A strange event happened, and I don't understand how it happened: the text changed before my eyes... Quite simple and clear sentences...on their own/ highlighted by me - M. M./came into motion: they were corrupted, perverted" in order to be distorted again in the next moment. However, the apparent organizational chaos achieved as a result of this actually conceals the potential for an infinite number of new organizational transformations, providing the boundless plurality of R.
According to the nomadological vision of the situation, within the framework of R., in principle, it is impossible to single out any fixed points, because each of them in its dynamics actually appears to the observer as a line - a trajectory of its own motion drawn by it, which, in turn, eludes the rigid fixation. Speaking about the rhizomorphic environment, Deleuze and Guattari note that "it consists of heterogeneous themes, different dates and levels", - in an abstract effort, "lines of articulation and dissection, strata, territoriality" can be distinguished in it: "any rhizome includes division lines along which it is stratified, territorialized, organized. These abstract lines would define a kind of R.'s statics, if in relation to the latter it would make sense to speak of a static state as such. However, the existence of a rhizomorphic environment can only be understood as a non-final dynamics, and this dynamics is determined by “lines of escape, movements of deterritorialization and destratification”: “comparative velocities of currents along these lines give rise to phenomena of relative delay, inhibition, or, conversely, swiftness ... All this - lines and comparative speeds - constitutes the internal organization "R. - her agency.
Thus, not only do the lines of internal division actually turn out to be permanently mobile in relation to R., they also suggest a kind of "breaks" as transitions of the rhizome into a state characterized by the absence of rigid and universal stratification. R., in contrast to the structure, is not afraid of a break, but - on the contrary - is constituted in it as in a permanent change in its configuration and, consequently, semantics: according to Deleuze and Guattari, "the rhizome can be torn, broken in some place, realign to another line ... Tears in the rhizome occur whenever segmental lines unexpectedly find themselves on the lines of escape ... These lines constantly pass into each other.
Similarly, Deleuze and Guattari consider what in traditional terminology (extremely inadequate in relation to this case) could be designated as the external structure of R. - R. can be interpreted as a fundamentally open environment - not only in the sense of openness to transformations, but and in the sense of its relationship with the outside. According to Deleuze and Guattari, R., in principle, does not and cannot have "neither beginning nor end, only the middle from which it grows and goes beyond it" - strictly speaking, in relation to R., it is impossible to clearly differentiate the external and internal: "the rhizome develops, varying, expanding, capturing, grasping, taking root" (Deleuze, Guattari), constituting its internal through the external.
Thus, the procedural nature of being a fundamentally astructural R. consists in the permanent generation of new versions of organization (including linear ones), similar in status to those transient macroscopic pictures of self-organization that are the subject of research for synergetics. However, any of these momentarily relevant and situationally significant variants of R.'s certainty cannot, in principle, be interpreted as final; a significant aspect of R.'s being is fixed in the principle of "non-selection" (Deleuze and Guattari), which is regulative in relation to the rhizomorphic organization. Among successively replacing each other virtual structures, none can be axiologically singled out as the most preferable - autochthonous in the ontological sense or correct in the interpretative sense: "to be rhizomorphic means to generate stems and fibers thatseem like roots/ highlighted by me - M. M. Ior connect with them, penetrating the trunk with the risk of being involved in new strange forms "(Deleuze, Guattari). At any moment in time, any line of R. can be connected (in a fundamentally unpredictable way ) with any other, forming each time at the moment of this (fundamentally transient, momentarily significant binding) a certain pattern of R. - a kind of temporary "plateau" of its permanently and unpredictably pulsating configuration.
In other words, if the structure corresponds to the image of the world as Cosmos, then R. - as "chaosmos". Such a pulsation of R., which implies transitions from stratification to escaping from it and from one variant of stratification to another, is functionally completely analogous to the pulsating transition of a self-organizing medium from chaotic states to states characterized by the presence of a macrostructure, which is based on the coordination of elements at the microlevel of the system. Thus, in the nomadological project of postmodernism, “we are talking about a model that continues to form and deepen in a process that develops, improves, renews” (Deleuze, Guattari), each time showing new versions of its being, correlated with each other according to the principle of isonomy: no more so than otherwise.
In this regard, if the structure is understood by Deleuze and Guattari as a "tracing paper" that "reproduces only itself when it is about to recreate something else," then R. is compared with a "map" that can and should be read: "we are talking about a model, which continues to develop. According to Deleuze and Guattari, "this ... is one of the most distinctive properties of the rhizome - it always has many exits" (cf. Jamieson's "dispersion of dominant moves", Borges's "garden of forking paths", Eco's network "labrinth" with their infinite number of entrances, exits, dead ends and corridors, each of which can intersect with any other - a semiotic model of the world and the world of culture, embodied in the image of a labyrinth library in "The Name of the Rose" or "space library" by V. Leitch).
In this regard, R. is finite, but unlimited; "the rhizome does not begin and does not end", and it has "enough strength to break and eradicate the word "to be" (Deleuze and Guattari), opening up the possibility and freedom of the infinite plurality of its non-ontologizing being . R. is fundamentally plural, and procedurally plural. As Deleuze and Guattari put it, “the rhizome is not reducible to either the One or the many. It is not the One that divides into two, then three, four, etc. But it is also not the many, which comes from the One and to which the One always joins ( n +1). It does not consist of unities, but of dimensions, more precisely, of moving lines. [...] It forms multidimensional linear sets /cf., for example, Eon and Chronos - M. M. Iwithout subject and object, which are concentrated in terms of consistency and from which the One is always subtracted ( n -one). Such a multitude changes its direction with a corresponding change in its nature and itself.
In accordance with what has been said, R. is inevitably constituted as "anti-genealogical", i.e. fundamentally not articulated either from the point of view of its origin, or from the point of view of the possibility of introducing criteria for assessing its processability as progress or regression. The procedural nature of R.'s being is fundamentally alternative to the preformist understanding of "unfolding" of the intention (meaning) originally embedded in the object - "unfolding", which is realized according to the model of the sequential formation of binary oppositions. According to a postmodern assessment, only rigidly gestalt systems are characterized by the presence of a genetic (evolutionary) axis as a linear vector of development: "the genetic axis - as an objective core unity from which subsequent stages emerge; a deep structure of similarity, rather, a basic sequence, decomposed into immediate components" . In contrast, the "rhizome is antigenealogue" - as "the final unity is realized in another / namely: fundamentally not axial, i.e. not linear -M. M./dimension - transformative and subjective." And in the procedural nature of this transformative dimension, "the rhizome is not subject to any structural or generative model. It eschews the very idea of the genetic axis as a deep structure."
In this regard, the nomadological concept of R. is constituted not only in the context of "post-metaphysical thinking", but also sets a new understanding of determinism, free from the idea of external causing influence and focused on the presumption of immanence. . In this context, nomadology sharply criticizes the idea of a rigidly defined unfolding of the original idea of a particular objectivity through binary differentiation of the content of the latter: according to the formulation of Deleuze and Guattari, "in contrast to the structure, which is determined through a set of points and positions, binary relations between these points and bilateral connections between positions, the rhizome consists exclusively of lines of division, stratification, but also lines of escape or deterritorialization, like a maximum dimension, following which the multitude is modified, transforming its nature" .
According to nomadological settings, these labeled vectors are fundamentally different from the binary vectors of the "growth of tree structures": according to Deleuze and Guattari, "these lines should not be confused with tree-type lines, which represent localizable connections between points and positions. Unlike a tree , the rhizome is not an object of reproduction: neither external reproduction as a tree-root, nor internal reproduction as a structure-tree". Thus, the principles of the implementation of the processuality of the existence of a rhizomorphic environment can be fixed, according to Deleuze and Guattari, as the "principles of connection and heterogeneity", "the principle of multiplicity", "the principle of an insignificant gap", "the principles of cartography and decalcomania".
Ideas articulated in the spirit of the nomadological project can be found not only in Deleuze and Guattari, but also in other postmodernist authors, which allows us to conclude that the presumptions explicitly expressed in nomadology are fundamental to the philosophy of postmodernism as a whole. A classic example of a rhizomorphic environment in postmodern analysts is also the environment of writing: according, for example, to R. Barth, a text is a product of writing as a process that does not result in a given text .
The postmodernist understanding of writing is fundamentally rhizomorphic (“metaphor... text is a network” by R. Barth), and for it there is not and cannot be a natural, correct or only possible way, not only a language of articulation, but also a language of articulation: “everything has to be unraveled, but there is nothing to decipher, the structure can be traced, stretched (like pulling up a lowered loop on a stocking) in all its turns and at all levels, but it is impossible to reach the bottom; the space of writing is given to us for a run, not for a breakthrough; writing constantly generates meaning, but it is here and disappears, there is a systematic release of meaning" (R. Barth).
Similarly, in Derrida's self-assessment, "the focus of the historical and systematic intersection of his ideas" is "the structural impossibility to close... the net, to fix its weaving, to delineate it with a boundary that would not be a meta." (As A. Ronson notes in an interview with Derrida, the problem-conceptual space of his philosophizing is not only not closed, but also fundamentally non-linear: "I asked where to start, and you locked me in some kind of labyrinth.")
R. as an organizational model finds its concretization in postmodern textology, in particular, in the figure of "construction" in the postmodern concept of artistic creativity, within which the ideal of the original author's work is replaced by the ideal of construction as a stereophonic stream of explicit and hidden quotations, each of which refers to different and diverse spheres of cultural meanings, each of which is expressed in its own language, requiring a special procedure of "recognition", and each of which can enter into a relationship of dialogue or parody with any other, forming new quasi-texts and quasi-citations within the text .
Constituting the idea of R. as a fundamentally non-linear type of organization of integrity, postmodernism is far from a one-sided interpretation of being as totally rhizomorphic, assuming the correct use of both linear and non-linear interpretation models - according to the parameters of the analyzed environments. Moreover, nomadology asks about the possible interaction of linear (“tree-like”) and non-linear (“rhizomorphic”) environments with each other: as Deleuze and Guattari write, “in the depths of a tree, in a root hollow or in the axil of a branch, a new rhizome can form.” - In this context, the following problems turn out to be relevant: "does the map have the ability to decalcify? Is it not one of the properties of the rhizome to cross roots, sometimes merge with them? Do multiplicity have layers where unification and totalization, massification, mimetic mechanisms take root? , meaningful seizure of power, subjective preferences," etc. (Deleuze, Guattari). Thus, the concept of "R.", integrally grasping the ideas about the non-linear and programmatically astructural way of organizing integrity formulated in the philosophy of postmodernism, acquiring the status of a concept fundamental for postmodernism, in the constitution of which the basic function of philosophy as such is manifested - the development of conceptual means for expressing and analyzing those types of systemic organization that are still being mastered by current culture.
1. Gritsanov A. A.,. Abushenko V.L. // History of Philosophy. Encyclopedia. Minsk, 2002, pp. 883-887. (The encyclopedia can be downloaded from the website:
In the book "Rhizome" (1976), jointly written by J. Deleuze and F. Guattari (subsequently, in a revised form, it was included as an introduction to the second volume of the book "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" - "A Thousand Plateaus") presents a model of modern culture, which makes it possible evaluate the changes that have occurred since the existence of classical culture. Since ancient times, the tree has been the image of the world, and the root is the image of the tree-world. The authors build their concept on the example of a different structure of the book, offering it as a model illustrating the type of its assembly. The first type of book is the root book. This is a classic book that has a stem, a stem, a crown. Binary logic is the spiritual reality of the root tree. The second type of the book is a root system, where the main root is almost completely destroyed; many secondary roots are grafted onto it and become extremely developed. They call such a system a rhizome. In contrast to any kind of root organization, the rhizome is interpreted not as a linear rod or korp, but as a tuber radically different from the roots, as a potential infinity. "The rhizome as an underground process (tige) is absolutely different from roots and rootlets. Bulbs, tubers are rhizomes"; "The rhizome has extremely diverse forms, from an external extension branched in all directions, ending with concretization in bulbs and tubers." In the animal kingdom, ants form a rhizome; rats swarm, crawling on each other. The fundamental difference of the rhizome is that it can develop anywhere and take on any configuration, because the rhizome is absolutely non-linear, and, according to the authors, the world has lost its core.
Unlike a rhizomorphic culture, the logic of a tree-like culture is the logic of rigid vector-oriented structures. The classic book is the epitome of the woody artistic world. This type of book is well organized, the law for this kind of book is the law of reflection. The tree paradigm forms the basis of political power. Its traditional landmarks - logos, idea, concept, mind, subject - represent the apparatus of power and thinking. Within the framework of the tree paradigm, J. Deleuze and F. Guattari interpret psychoanalysis: "For an example, let's turn to psychoanalysis once again: not only in its theory, but also in the practice of calculation and treatment, it subordinates the unconscious to tree structures, hierarchical graphs, repeated memories, centered organs ". There is no future for the tree type of culture, it is becoming obsolete, as J. Deleuze and F. Guattari believe.
The current culture is a root system, or fibrous root. Here the main root is underdeveloped or destroyed almost to the ground: it is on it that multiplicity and some secondary roots, which develop rapidly, try to take root. The rhizome is modeled as a non-equilibrium integrity (largely similar to non-equilibrium environments studied by synergetics), not characterized by the presence of organizational orders and characterized by continuous creative mobility. The source of transformation is not the invasion of foreign elements, but the immanent instability due to its energy potential of variation. If the structure corresponds to the image of the world as Cosmos (harmony, orderliness), then the rhizome - as chaosmos. If the structure is understood as a tracing paper, then the rhizome is compared with a map that can and should be read, because we are talking about a model that continues to form. The map has many outputs, unlike the tracing paper, which always returns to the same one. The rhizome is, in principle, plural, and procedurally plural; it is not subject to any structural or generative model; it always has several exits; the rhizome does not begin or end, i.e. it is fundamentally inarticulate in terms of neither its origin nor the possibility of introducing criteria for assessing its processuality as progress or regression. In this regard, the nomadological concept of the rhizome sets a new understanding of determinism, free from the idea of an external causing influence.
Nomads (nomads) act as a historical prototype and image of the rhizome (rhizome) paradigm. Nomads in this sense have neither past nor future, they only appear and always become, having not a history, but a wide geography. A nomad can be called deterritorialized in the full sense of the word precisely because deterritorialization is carried out not after, like with a migrant, and not through, like with a settled inhabitant - it is precisely deterritorialization that will create the nomad's connection with the land. Nomadism advocates that social arrangement which will allow thought itself to become a nomad. Here we are talking about whether any policy is possible under which the thinking of a nomad will be realized.
The rhizome as an organizational model finds its concretization in postmodern artistic creativity, in which the ideal of the original author's work is replaced by the ideal of construction as a stereophonic stream of explicit and hidden quotations, each of which refers to different and diverse spheres of cultural meanings. This is the second image of the book, and the future is behind it. A book-rhizome will implement a fundamentally different type of connections: all its points will be interconnected, but these connections are not structured, multiple, confusing, they are interrupted every now and then unexpectedly. This multiple still needs to be created, but without adding external qualities to it, but, on the contrary, only at the level of those qualities that it already recognizes. Along with the birth of a new type of creativity, a new type of reading will arise accordingly.
This type of non-linear connections, which implies a different way of reading and a different type of organization of a literary text, was later repeatedly written by U. Eco, comparing it with an encyclopedia, in which there is no linearity of the narrative and which can be read from any necessary place. This is how hypertexts are created in computer networks, when each user arbitrarily enters his version, sending it for further growth by other users. Unlike traditional judgments about art, the modern book is not an image of the world; it forms a rhizome with the world, there is a non-parallel evolution of the book and the world, the book ensures the deterritorialization of the world, and the world contributes to the territorialization of the book.
Comparing the two models, J. Deleuze and F. Guattari compare them with Eastern and Western cultures. The tree subjugated the entire Western world and Western thinking from botany to biology, anatomy, epistemology, theology, ontology, all philosophy. The East is a completely different type: it is a culture of tubers that develops separately from the individual. Of course, the authors do not reduce the entire East to a rhizome, but the states here do not carry out their activities in a tree-like scheme, and the despot in them is like a stream, not a source. In this context, America appears to the authors as an intermediary, because it acts simultaneously through extermination, internal liquidations (not only of Indians, but also of farmers, etc.) and with the help of an external sequential rapid increase in immigration. America is not free from arboreal dominance and the search for roots, however, everything important that has happened or is happening continues thanks to the American rhizome - beatniks, underground, subway, gangs and gangs. America, in their opinion, has mixed all directions. As can be seen, the concept of a rhizome is applicable to the analysis of the current state of a culture and its individual components.
According to the concept of J. Deleuze and F. Guattari, the rhizome is not a frozen phenomenon, it continues to form and deepen, being in the process of becoming. In contrast to the tree, the rhizome is not an object of reproduction, but an antigeneology, short-term memory or anti-memory. "The rhizome does not begin and does not saturate, it is always in the middle, between things, between being, intermezzo". The rhizome works by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, prick. An essential aspect of the processability of the rhizome is the fundamental unpredictability of its future states.
Rizoma vs network
E.A. SHENTSEV
In modern philosophy, the signs of the end of the postmodern era and the formation of a new sociocultural reality are becoming increasingly clear, which is reflected, firstly, in the development of the concepts of the network society, secondly, in the emergence and development of the network approach, and, thirdly, in the conceptual and terminological level, in a shift from the concept of a rhizome to the concept of a network. The article shows that the concepts of rhizome and network, despite the etymological relationship, belong to different worldview contexts. The point of view is substantiated, according to which the rhizome can be interpreted not only as a fundamental concept of postmodern discourse, but primarily as a concept of J. Deleuze and F. Guattari. In this case, the network is interpreted as a "plan of immanence", a "soil of concepts", therefore, on the one hand, it has a much larger volume and heuristic potential compared to a rhizome, and on the other hand, it reflects the polyphonic complexity and interdependence of various processes and phenomena of the modern world.
The modern philosophical thought shows obvious features of the end of postmodern age and formation of a new social-cultural reality. It is reflected, firstly, in developing concepts of a network society, secondly, in forming the network approach and, thirdly, at conceptually terminological level involving displacement from notion of rizome to that of network. The article shows, that concepts of rizome and network, despite etymological relationship, belong to various world outlook contexts. Further the point of view according to which rizome can be interpreted not only as a fundamental concept of a postmodern discourse, but, first of all, as concept by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari is proved. In this case the network is treated as "the plan of immanenc", "grounds of concepts ", hence, on the one hand, it possesses much greater volume and heuristic potential than rizome does, on the other hand it demonstrates polyphonic complexity and interdependence of various processes and phenomena of the modern world, moreover, the network has attributive properties of universal correlation, global connectivity and powerful intension to integrate.
KEY WORDS: rhizome, network, human, postmodernism, network approach.
KEY WORDS: rizome, a network, the person, a postmodernism, the network approach.
In modern philosophical research, the motive for the transition from the worldview and epistemological attitudes of postmodernism to
© Shentseva E.A., 2015
a new worldview and attempts to comprehend reality, this worldview gave birth. The new social reality is theoretically substantiated in the concepts of a network society or a society of network structures1, at the same time, with a certain degree of confidence, it can be argued that its philosophical understanding is only beginning to take on more or less pronounced contours, as well as the fact that we, perhaps, are witnessing the birth and formation of a new, so-called network approach.
Despite the lack of its complete conceptual design2, there is reason to indicate the anthropological foundation of the network approach, due to its conjugation both with new ideas about modern society and with the post-non-classical type of rationality of modern science, which takes into account the goals and values of the cognizing subject, which allows us to talk about the return Man in the bosom of philosophical reflection. This approach in the strict sense today represents a certain direction, setting, on the one hand, the intention of discovering and conceptualizing new network gestalts of the modern world, and on the other hand, the search for theoretical and philosophical foundations in order to constitute the approach as a philosophical one. Definitely, we can only say that the network approach proceeds (apart from technological ones) from a number of prerequisites that have ontological and epistemological aspects. The first aspect is connected with the vision of the social network structure as a new (certainly not the only) form of social space organization, the second one points to the productivity of studying this or that phenomenon either through the network of its interactions or as an element of the constructed network structure.
Obviously, one of the key concepts for the emerging discourse is the concept of the network, while the crissom, starting with the text of the same name by J. Deleuze and F. Guattari ("Rhizome", 1976), is the fundamental concept of the postmodern discursive space.
We have to find out how the concepts of rhizome, which received a kind of substantiation from French philosophers, gave rise to numerous interpretations and largely determined the tone of postmodernism, and the network, which only recently became the subject of philosophical analytics, are related.
Before delving into the essence of conceptual metamorphoses, which, in our opinion, testify to deep paradigm shifts, we note that the term network (networks) is increasingly penetrating into the field of research far from network issues5. Let us pay attention to how this term is used by V.S. Stepin (with reference to A. Eddington and K. Popper): "theory is a net that we throw into the world ... what we get as objective knowledge is determined by the nature of the theoretical network. In a different network (with a different configuration cells) we will catch new objects in the ocean of the world, and this will lead to changes in ideas about the structure of the world" [Stepin 2010, 73]. Or earlier: "... a theoretical scheme is a 'network of abstract objects' that determines the specifics of a particular theory" [Stepin 2000, 310]. No less interesting is the use of the conceptual construction "feedback loop", which came from cybernetics and is characteristic of the network discourse (G. Bateson, U Maturana, F. Varela). In particular, we are talking about E. Agazzi's work "Epistemology and the Social: A Feedback Loop" [Agazzi 2010]. All these are signs of the penetration of the concepts of the network approach, if not "into the letter", then "into the spirit" of philosophical research.
Referring to the text "Rhizome" by Deleuze-Guattari in order to find an authentic definition can lead the reader to some confusion, due to the fact that there is none. However, this is understandable, since o-limitation, i.e., the establishment of a conceptual limit for the rhizome is very problematic. Only later did the rhizome acquire refined formulations and detailed descriptions. On the whole, however, researchers focus on the fact that the concept is introduced by Deleuze and Guattari "to designate a radical alternative to closed and static linear structures that assume a rigid axial orientation" and reflects "a fundamentally non-structural and non-linear way of organizing integrity" [Mozheiko 2002, 883].
The French authors themselves introduce the concept gradually and as if reluctantly (“We feel that we will not convince ... anyone if we do not number some approximate properties of the rhizome” [Deleuze, Guattari 2010, 12]) give a detailed and sometimes very vague description of its principles (coupling and heterogeneity, multiplicity, non-significant gap, cartography and decalcomania, etc. [Ibid., 12-22]). We note in passing that, speaking of the process of creating concepts, or rather, the general plane of immanence, which is the ground for the generation of concepts, they openly admit that: "in each plane there are not only pages, but also holes, and fog flows through them, which a plan is surrounded, and in which the philosopher who has drawn it sometimes runs the risk of getting lost." [Deleuze, Guattari 1998, 68]. Let us pay tribute to the depth and subtlety of the reasoning of French thinkers, who, while radically opposing the rhizome to the tree as an image of the culture of the past, nevertheless emphasize: “It is important that the tree-root and the rhizome-channel are not opposed as two models: one acts like a model and a transcendental tracing paper , even if it generates its own outflows; the other acts as an immanent process that reverses the model and sketches the map, even if it creates its own hierarchies, even if it generates an arbitrary channel" [Deleuze, Guattari 2010, 23].
It is obvious that, on the one hand, "we are talking about a model that does not cease to build up and destroy itself, and about a process that does not cease to last, interrupt, and resume", and on the other hand, the authors recognize the coexistence, and moreover, the possibility interactions between rhizomorphic and tree-like forms and their corresponding interpretative models: “In rhizomes, there are structures of a tree or roots, but the opposite is also true. A new rhizome can form in the core of a tree, in a cavity of a root, or in a bend of a branch” [Ibid., 36]. Permeated with protest aspirations, the rhizome appears not only as a key concept of postmodernism, but also as a symbol of the postmodern worldview. It is fundamentally important that the rhizome acquires "the status of a concept fundamental for postmodernism, in the constitution of which the basic function of philosophy as such is manifested - the development of conceptual means for expressing and analyzing those types of systemic organization that are still being mastered by present culture" [Mozheiko 2002, 887]. Considering the literary roots of postmodernism and its deep connection with the world of texts, it is emphasized that the concept of rhizome "expresses the deconstructivist attitude, fundamental for postmodernity, to the presumption of the destruction of traditional ideas about the structure of the text as semantically centered" [Ibid., 883]. The properties and characteristics of the rhizome, as well as its significance for postmodern discourse in general, received clarifying interpretations and comments in the works of I.P. Ilyina, N.B. Mankovskaya, M.A. Mozheiko, A.R. Usmanova, which, despite the depth and thoroughness, did not reflect (at least in an explicit form) a sufficiently significant fact - the rhizome is the concept of J. Deleuze-F. Guattari.
Two heads and six legs; four walk, and two lie still
Self-esteem - what is it: concept, structure, types and levels
Cassandra's Path, or Pasta Adventures War on Earth and Underground