deleuze 1000 plateaus chapter13

8/7/2019 deleuze 1000 plateaus chapter13

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deleuze-1000-plateaus-chapter13 1/9

Thou and Plateau

Gilles Deleuze and Felix uti/tan

P hilo sop her G illes D eleu ze 's b oo k o n N ietzsche, N ie tz sch e a nd P hilo so ph y ( 19 61 ), h elp ed

in au gu rate th e in te re st in N ie tzs ch e'§ work th a t w ould culm inate la ter in the decade in the

em ergence of P ost-S tructuralism . O ther books by O eleuze, such as The loge o f Mean ing

(1969) , explored th e underside of S tructura lism , the realm of nonsense that susta ined th e

order -making ru les o f language. His co l labo r a ti on w ith F elix Guattan resulted in tw o impor t -

a nt P os t- Str uc tu ra lis t b oo ks - Th e Ant i -Oedipus (1912 ) , a c ri ti qu e o f F r eu di an p sy c ho an a ly si s,

an d A Th ou sa nd P la te au s: (alita/ism a n d S c hiz o ph re n ia (1980 ) - an am bitious m odel of

history an d o f th e wor ld . O e le uz e a nd G u atta rl in th a t l at te r wo r k describe a c o n fli ct b e tw een

tw o m odes of sodal o rgan ization that co incide w ith tw o m odels of reality . O ne is arbo resque

and favo rs o rder an d h ierarchy . The o ther is rh izom atic and favors an undoing o f all such

orders and hierarchies . A rhizom e is the root o f a plan t that travels la tera lly underground and

prolifera tes un pred ic tab ly . H istory , th e w riters argue. a ltern ates betw een m om en ts of f i x r t y

and p ow er th at they called "territo ria liza tio n" and m om ents of "d eterrito ria liza tion" o r u ndo -

in g, w h en f ix e d o r de rs fa ll apart and are t r ans fo rmed .

he two IIr us wrote . 'l i l lI-Oed,pus together. Since each of Uf. \\ s "n:r-JI, there \\:I!>

already quite :1 crowd. Here w e : hal' made usc of t:\ eryrhing t ha t c. me within range,

what was c1uSeSI as "ell i.l.~ tanhcst 3\\' ~ . W ' have ss igned clever pseudonyms tu

prevent recognition. \\'hy h8\'1: we kept our own names? OUI of habit, purdy nut of

habit. To malt our: IVe l unrecogn izab le in rum. To render imperceptible, nu l our-

selves, but \\'h31 make. us aero feci . and chin!... IS(I bee usc ii's nice IC J talk like

everybody else, to say the su n rises, when '\'crybody know s ir's on ly II manne r 0

speaking, To reach, nO I the poin t where one no l onger says J , bU I the poin t where it

i no longer of any importance whether one says L \Vc arc nn longer ourselves. E:1I:h

wil l knu \ \ h i' IIwn. W hav e b ee n a id ed , in sp ired , m ultip lied .

book has neither object nor subject: il i made of \ ariously nrrned matters, and

very different date' and speeds. To arrribut the book to II subject i. 10 overlook this

working of matters, an d the exterioriry of their relations. It i In fabricate a h mefi-

cent God ro expl: in g 'ological mov emen t s . In a book, : u - . in u ll thing!., there art ' linn.

or a rt ic ula tio n o r scgm cnra r i ry , strata and rerr irorjes; bUI alsu lin l!S () n igh t, m ov e-

merits of dctcrrirorialization nd destrarificatiun. . mparativc nUL'S () now on th ·t·

line' produce phenomena of relative lowness and vi .eosiry, or on ihc con rary, ofacceleration nd rupture, AJI this, l ines and measurable spe -ds, con titutcs an ossem-

blage. boo], is a n assemblage of rhi k ind , am i as such is una r r r ibu tah le . It is a

multiplicity - bUI we don't know ye t what h multiple entails wh e n iI i. no longer

attributed th t is, after it has been elevated ttl rb e status of a . uh taruive, One ide of



A T ho us an d P la te au s 379

a machinic assemblage faces the strata, which doubtless make it a kind of organism,

or signifying totality, or determination attributable to a subject; it also has a side

facing a b od y w ith ou t o rg an s (BwOl, which is continually dismantling the organism,

causing asignifying particles or pure. intensities to pass or circulate and attributing to

itself subjects that it leaves with nothing more than a name as the trace of an

intensity. What is the body without organs of a book? There are several, depending

on the nature of the lines considered, their particular grade or density. and the

possibility of their converging on a "plane of consistency" assuring their selection;

Here, as elsewhere, the units of measure are what is essential: q u an ti fy w r it in g . There

is no difference between what a b oo k ta lk s about and how it is made .. Therefore a

book also has no object. As an assemblage, a book ha s only itself, in connection with

other assemblages and in relation to other bodies without organs. We will never ask

what a book means, as signified or signifier, we will not look for anything to under-stand in it. We will ask what it Junctions with, in connection with what other things it

does or does not transmit intensities, in which other multiplicities its own are inserted

and metamorphosed, and with what bodies without organs it makes its own converge.

A book exists only through the outside and on the outside. A book itself is a little

machine; what is the relation (also measurable) of this literary machine to a war

machine, love machine, revolutionary machine, etc. - and an a b st ra ct m a ch in e that

sweeps them along? We have been criticized for overquoting literary authors. But

when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be

plugged into, must be plugged into in order to work. Kleist and a mad war machine,

Kafka and a most extraordinary bureaucratic machine . .. (What if one became animal

or plant th,ough literature, which certainly does not mean •literarily? Is it not first

through th e voice that one becomes animal?) Literature is an assemblage. It has noth-

ing to do with ideology. There is no ideology and never has been.

All we talk about are multiplicities, lines, strata and segmentarities, lines of flight

and intensities, machinic assemblages and their various types". bodies without organs

and their construction ..and selection, the plane of consistency, and in each c a s e

the units of measure. Stretom etei» , deleom eten, B wO unirs of density B 1110 u nits of

convergenre: Not only d o . these constitute a quantification of. writing, but they

define writing as always the measure of something else. Writing has nothing to do

with signifying. It ha s to do with surveying, mapping; even realms that are yet to

come.

A first type of book is the, root-book. The tree is already the image of the world,

or the root the image of the world-tree. This is the classical book, as noble, signify-

ing, and subjective organic interiority (the strata of the book). The b o o k imitates the

world, as art imitates nature: by procedures specific to it that accomplish what naturecannot or can no longer do. The law of the book is the law of reflection, the One that

becomes two. How could the law of the book reside in nature, when it is what

presides over the very division between world and book, nature and art? One that

becomes two: whenever we encounter this formula, even stated strategically by Mao

or understood in the most "dialectical" way possible, what we have before us is the

most classical and well reflected, oldest, and weariest kind of thought. Nature doesn't

work that way: in nature, roots are taproots with a more multiple, lateral, and

circular system of ramification, rather than a dichotomous one ....

The radicle-system, or fascicular root, is the second figure of the book, to which

our modernity pays willing allegiance. This time, the principal root has aborted, or



Post-struit lira ltsni. /)CUIIlSlnlCIIIII1. l'ost-modrmism

its tip has been destroyed; an immediate, indefinite multiplicity of sccondarv roots

grafrs onto it and undergoes a flourishing development. This time, natural rcalit v is

what aborts the principal root, but the root's unity subsists, as past or vet 10 come, as

possible. We must ask if reflexive, intellectual reality docs not compensate for this

state of things h y demanding an even more comprehensive secret unity, or a more

extensive totality. Take William Burroughs's cut-up method: the folding of one text

onto another, which constitutes multiple and even adventitious roots (like a cutting).

implies a supplementary dimension to that of the texts under consideration. In this

supplementary dimension of folding, unity continues its intellectual labor. That is

why the most resolutely fragmented work can also he presented as the Total Work Of

Magnum Opus. Most modern methods for making series proliferate or a mulriplicit y

!!row arc perfectly valid in one direction, for example, a linear direction, whereas a

unitv of totalization asserts itself even more firrnlv in another, circular or cyclic.

dimension. Whenever a multiplicity is taken up in a structure, its growth is offset by

a reduction in its laws of combination. The abortionists of unirv arc indeed angel

makers, doctores angelici, because thcv affirm a properly angelic and superior unity.

Joyce's words, accurately described as having "multiple roots," shatter the linear

unity of the word, even of language, only to posit a cyclic unity of the sentence, text.

or knowledge. Nietzsche's aphorisms shatter the linear unity of knowledge, only toinvoke the cyclic unity of the eternal return, present as the nonknown in thought.

This is as much as to say that the fascicular system docs not rcallv break with

dualism, with the complemeruarirv between a subject and an object, a natural rcalir,

and a mental rcalitv: unity is consistently thwarted and obstructed in the object.

while a new type of unity triumphs in the subject. The world has lost its pivot; the

subject can no longer even dichotomize, but accedes to a higher unity, of ambiva-

lence or ovcrdetcrrnination, in an always supplementary dimension to that of its

object. The world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world:

radiclc-chaosmos rather than root-cosmos. A strange mystification: a book all the

more total for being fragmented. At any rate, what a vapid idea, the book as the

image of the world. In truth. it is not enough to say, "Lorur Ii\C the multiple,"

difficult as it is 10 raise that crv. No typographical. lexical, or even syntactical

cleverness is enough to make it heard. The multiple must he made, ... A system of

this kind could be called a rhizome. A . rhizome as subterranean stem is absolutelv

different from roots and radiclcs, Bulbs and tubers arc rhizomes. Plants with roots or

radicles may be rhizomorphic in other respects altogether: the question is whether

plant life in its specificity is not entirely rhizomatic. h'en some animals are, in their

pack form. Rats are rhizomes. Burrows arc too, in all of their functions of shelter.

supply, movement, evasion, and breakout. The rhizome itself assumes very diverse

forms, from ramified surface extension in all directions to concretion into bulbs and

tubers. When rats swarm over each other. The rhizome includes the best and the

worst: potato and couchgrass, or the weed. Animal and plant, couch grass is crabgrass,

\\e get the distinct feeling that we will convince no one unless we enumerate certain

approximate characteristics of the rhizome.

I and 2 Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome canbe connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or

root, which plots a point, fixes an order. The linguistic tree on the Chomskv model

still hegins at a point S and proceeds by dichotomy. On the contrary, not every trait

in a rhizome is necessarily linked to a linguistic feature: semiotic chains of every



A Thousand Plateaus 381

nature are connected to very diverse modes of coding (biological, political, economic,

etc.) that bring into play not only different regimes of signs but also states of things

of differing status. Co ll ec ti v e a s semb lage s o f enuncia ti on function directly within machi-

n ic a s semb lage s; it is not impossible to make a radical break between regimes of signs

and their objects. Even when linguistics claims to confine itself to what is explicit

and to make no presuppositions about language, it is still in the sphere of a discourse

implying particular modes of assemblage and types of social power. Chomsky's gram-

rna t ica l i ry , the categorical S symbol that dominates every sentence, is more funda-

mentally a marker of power than a syntactic marker: you will construct grammatically

correct sentences, you will divide each statement into a noun phrase and a verb

phrase (first dichotomy. s , ) . Our criticism of these linguistic models is not that they

are too abstract but, on the contrary, that they are not abstract enough, that they do

not reach the abs tr ac t machine that- connects a language to the semantic and pragmaticcontents of statements, to collective assemblages of enunciation, to a whole micropo-

litics of the soc ia l field, A rhizome. ceaselessly establishes connections between semi-

otic. chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences,

and soc ia l struggles. A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating very diverse acts,

not only linguistic, but also. perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no

language in itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a throng of dialects,

patois. slangs, and specialized languages; There is no ideal speaker-listener" any more

than there is a homogeneous linguistic community. Language is,' in Weinreich's

words, "an essentially heterogeneous- reality."! Therejs no mother tongue, only a

power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity. Language

stabilizes around a parish; a bishopric, a capital. It forms a bulb. It evolves by

subterranean stems and flows, along river valleys or train tracks; it spreads like a

patch ofoil.2 It is always possible, to break a language down into internal structuralelements, an undertaking not fundamentally different from a search for roots. There

is always something genealogical about a tree. It is nota method for the people.

A method of the rhizome type, on the contrary, can, analyze language only by decen-

tering it onto other dimensions' and other registers. A language is never closed upon

itself, except as a function of impotence.

3 Principle of multiplicity. it is only when the multiple is effectively treated as a

substantive, "multiplicity," that it ceases to have any relation to the One as subject

or object, natural or spiritual reality, image and world. Multiplicities are rhizomatic,

and expose arborescent pseudomultiplicities for what they are. There is no unity to

serve as a pivot in the object or to divide in the subject. There is not even the unity

to abort in the object or "return" in the subject. A multiplicity has neither subject

nor object, only determinations, magnitudes, and dimensions that cannot increase in

number without the multiplicity changing in nature (the laws of combination there-

fore increase in number as the multiplicity grows). Puppet strings, as a rhizome or

multiplicity, are tied not to the supposed will of an artist or puppeteer but to a

multiplicity of nerve' fibers, which form another puppet in· other dimensions con-

nected to the first: "Call the strings or rods that move the puppet the weave. It

might be objected that its multiplicity resides in the person of the actor; who projects

it into the text. Granted; but the actor's nerve fibers in turn form a weave. And they

fall through the gray matter, the grid, into the undifferentiated ... The interlay ap-

proximates the pure activity of weavers attributed in myth to the Fates or Noms.,,3

An assemblage is precisely this increase in the dimensions of a multiplicity that



/'osl-SII"I!'I II ra lIS111 , D!'(.flmlrJ/tlll1f1, P"~I-w"drI'llISIll

ncecssarily c h a ng e s in nature :lsi, c- . : r l :1nd~ i.,\ connec t i ons . There tin: n il p oin ts or

po!.iliuns in a rhi)l.omt'., such as tlmsl.' found in asrructuru, tree, or root, Then: :lTI:

only lin ·S. When Glenn (iuuld leads up Inc pcr(nnnam'c uf (I piece. he i'i nUl illS'

d is pla yin g \'ir lU H sil~ , he it . I ran sfo rm in ltlh l ' m us ie a l p o in ts inw lin e s . hl~ i~ m : L in !!"

thc v h u l l . ' piCl'l' prnlifemu:. The numoe r is l1ulon) : . ' ·c r .3 universal concept rneasur in) !

e le m e n ts a l.:t :u rt li n~ w th e ir em pla c em en t in a !:\, i \'t~ nd im en ~ ion , h u t h a . its{ 'lr b e com e

a mult ipl ic i t ) 1.11:11\arics alCt,nTdin!!: mthc dimensions cunsitlercdlhc primacy ofthe

dnmain over a complex uf numher« anachcd In rhai domain. \.\" du nut have unitv

(1fI",,.f) o f m ea su re , f!llly mull ir lic ilic s o r v a rie r ic '~ o f mea.surcml'n I, 'rhe n nl in n o f

unity tumid appears onl~ ....hen then: is :: t p!l\\er .Iukl'l!\ er in the multiplicil~ by the

s il- . 'n iIic r o r a cHr t ' cspundinp: suhic('lilicalion prucc"dinp:: This is th e I. " :ISC lur 3' p ivo t -

u n iI\ f u rmin l ! Ihe ha . .is I'm a set III h iun ivocal rchu i( lu~hips b,t ween ob i e c r i H~r~ru-

rn en rs n r p o in ts , o r fo r th e O n e rha t d iv id es fu liu w inl ! [he law of< \ . b inary ofdiflercn-

d:ltion in the su b je c t. n il~ a lw ay s op cn lle s in an em !,' ~ te n s in n supplementary tn

Iha l o f the sY'itl 'nlt ' !msidcrcd (u \'c rc nll.in p :) . T h e p u in tis Ih31 . a rhil'.om~' o r m u ltip li-

d l ~ 1 'I 1'\ "( 'r " l lu "'s i1s 'If HI be 11\ e reod cd , n ev e r h a s .3 .\·a ila h k a sup r)ll 'm en la r~ d im cn ....

s i nn over and above its n um b er I I I ' l in e v, I .h :.l l is, over an d aom e th e muhip l i c iB III

num he rs a ll a ch cd to t h o se line s . ,1 \ II mull iplidI i e sa r e flal , in till' sense 'h a I th ey Ii11

o r o (,)c up ~ .a l.1o f their d im e n ... on s: \\C' wil l rherc lore spcaL o f a , ,,/ '111" I~r'ollm/l' lI l;J' III'm uh ip l idl ies., e\'enl.huugh the dimensions of Ihis"pla.nc" increase w i l h rh e number

0 1 cunncctinns l ha l arc m ade nn 11 . 1\ luhipl ic i l ie~ are defined by th e u U I.s id e: by rh c

absrraet I i nc , the l im ' uf I lip :h l o r d C lt·r tilllr i .. lizannn according II! wh i c h Ihe, chanp :c

in 0;11urc an d cnnnecr w iIii UIhe r 111U 1illlici1:il"S. T n t ' plane nf cunsisl ency (I!rid 1 is 1.he

(lu ls :id c o f a .1 Imuhiplicilic ... T h e line 1 ) 1 ' Oi [ !h l marh: Ihcrl~ a lil~ ·Uf;l Iinirc n umb e r of

d ime n s i o n s rharrhe m u hip lk il~ e ffe cr iv cly fillsiehe im p us sih ility o f a su rp lC 'm c nla r~

d ime n s i o n . unless the m u hip lic il~ is lran ~fu rm cd hy tb c line flf nip:hl;lh,' pussihi l i l~

and n 'ce...s i ry of l1:mcninl! a ll uf Ihef l1ul i ipl idl ies on tl single plane 01 e nn~ is lc n{" or

cxrcrioritt, re~.lrdl·l>... of rheir number I I f dimensions. The ideal fu r a honk wuu l d be

10 I:J~ c\ ' t 'rYlhinp: nut on :1 plane of e)(terimity uf t hi !> I .i nd . ona single pap:e,. the same

shee r : lived evcnt1o, h i s l nrical delcmlinat ions, concepts. indi \~ ic l uals, g rou ps . su c ia l

ermarions, Kleist in\ cnll::u Q . wri l inp: or this l ) ' pe , a b ru k en ch a in of anct:b and\ a r ia b lc sp c ed s , w it h u eee le ru 1 un ~ and I rans foonal in n s . a lw a ) s in a rdlil. in n with th e

ou t s i de . 0P1. '11 r in l:P " I H . tex is , th e re fo re , a rc ap pu cd ine\'ery w ay to rh c c la s s ic a l o r

rnman. l ic bou\. eonsti 1 01 .'0 0 h y Ihe in t c rillril ~ of ;1 . substance or suh ].1 .·c l, 'rh e w ar

Ill:le hin c- ho u k :1 !,!3 im a th e Stal!.' : l . ppa r :nus - Imuk , FIliI /lwlllp1i(l/"'s I II " 1 .7 rI",/elmllll.( aT C

:.I~ i~ niry in ~an d a su bjee riv e. The, arc designated h~ indefinite art ides, nr rather \ ly

p"l r l i l i t - s( smnt ' eouchgrass, som« n f a rh iy ,nO ll', , , ) .

4 Jlritll.:irll' of a s i gn i f r i ng rupture: a!f<lin~t the o\'C'rsi~ifying hrl 'aL~ separaling

structures or CUllin!! across II single struct ure, A rhi~'llmc rna) be b roken , shanered at

a t . rj \ en spill, h u t il wi l l St:!TI upagain o n fine uf iLs o ld lin l'S , nr 011 nC~1 l ines , rill!

can never ~el ri d IIf a nn . becausethe) form an a n ima l rhizome that can rebound t ime

and :Ip:' . l in after m ns t u f iI has been dl>strflyctLI'\ cr~ I 'h i:m mee nn ta in .lin e s o f

SCf . . '1Tu . :nmri ly aceording 10 which iI i, stratif iccl. rerritorializcd, organized, < ; i [ . , ' T 1 i l i c u ,

arrributcd, ere, as well .31. lines of delerdlmial i7.at ion down wh i c h ilC O n~ (an tly flees .

There il - a.fuplurc in th e rhi7,umc w h en ev er se gm c nra rv lines c) i r lul ic into ~I line of

lliJthl, but th ' line nf Ilii!hl is par i of th e rhi;mme, These lines alwaysric hack In one

another, Thai is w hy one can nC \OCT posit a dual i sm or a dkhOlo"'l~ ,e\'cn in (be

ru d im en ta ry fo rm o f rh c go nd an ti th e b a d , Y ou m ay m ake a rupture, dr aw .0 1 l in e o f



I 7'llfllmmd Plateuu: J X J

n igh r, ~C( Iherc is 'il i II :I dance r Iha l ~ uu \ il l r cencoun IeI' organ iz ' I io ns Lh :H resl rnri I)

everything; limnatinn' Ihat re uore power m :1 signifier, :mribUliul l that reconstitute

!I ru h ic c t any th in g you lik e , rum O edip a l re 'urgem:c III ras(.;sr concretions.

U ruup s and in d iv idu a ls contain ruicrofascisms ju st w aitin r 10 cry sta llize . Y es, c ou ch -

J ,. '1 ':ISSs .lIsu rh izom e. (iul lcl and b ad ar c o nly th e p rud w';Is o f a n .K...iv c and rem por-

al'~ sel ·c lio n. \\ hi 'h must b' rencv ed.

l Io w could m il' e rn en ts o f d e ie rru o ria li« rio n and prm:cs!>l:. of r 'I erriiori lizarion

no t be relative, alwaj ~ connected, call rht up in one another i ' Th orchid derer r i ror -

la liz ·s by Ih rm in • an im age . a rra ' ing o f a \Va.<;p;bur (he w asp re rerrito ria liz es un th a t

ima!J;c. The w nsp js n e\ erthe le ss d crerri Ir ia l,izc d , h 'co m in g: ;J piece in th e o rc hid 's

reprod uct i e appa ratus. Hu I iI rctcrr] toria Iizes the orchid b. transport ing its poll '0 .

,\ .1Sp an d o rch id , :1S heterogeneous clements, form a rh izom e . I r could he sa id t h : 1 I

the "rehid im ita tes rhe \\,:1.'1'.reproducing it s image in u s i gn i ying la sh iu n (m im ':;i ,

m im icry , lu re , eic.). BUI this i. true n l. 1m h· level o r the r trnra Q parallelism

h cr w e en LW(J SI • ta such th a t 3 p l an t organization on on . im ita tes an an im J organize-l ion onthe other, At the same lime, som eth in g e lse entirely is ~ in~ on : no t irn it r io n

.n all hU a capture of code, rurplus \ alue uf code, an incree . .e in valen ce , • v crir b lc

h e 'mning, a hecorning-» dip of th e orch id and :1 ll\:clJming:-orchid o f' [h e wasp. Each

I ll ' [ hL' SC becornings brings a bou t the dercr r i tur iul izar iun !If nne term an ti th e re te rr i-

1 1 1 r i n Ii i' ' ' ::un n n ft h e IIIher: I he 1 \ \ ' 1 1 b c cl lm i n l;. "S i n t c r lin'k an d formreln ys in c ircu lu rien

Ill' intell!>il ies push ing rhc de te rriro ria lix a tiun ev er lim ite r . T h ere is ne ith er irn iru tio n

ll l1r re icm hlance , o nly an exp lod ing of 1\\ u hetcregcneuus ser ies lin rh c lin e u r ! l ight

I.;lJmpu 'cu h . .. eommun rhiznrn ' Ih:)1 can no l onge r be r r r ibured ru or subjugated hy

:lI1ythin~ signif~ in!!, , . . Trnnsven al comrnun i c a r i nns between liil crent lines "'rJmhl'

the genc:dogical trees, ;\Iway' lemk Ii.lr the rnulecular, or even suhmolecul r, particle

with IIh ich w e arc a llie d . \'e evolve and d ie m o re from ou r polymorphous and

rh izo rn aric nus th an from hereditary disease • or disc,'C5

dUJ( have [heir ow n line ufde scen t. T h e rh izom e is an amigenealogy.

The same app lie s to rh e buok and the w n rld : c on tra ry III d ee ply ru nte d belief, rh e

hook 1 . ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 un im age u f th e w orld , It f l J rms 'J rh izom e \~ jlb the wor ld , rhere is : 1 1 1

upn ra lle l evo lu tion n frh c hunk and the wor ld ; the buuk assures the dcrcr r imr ia l iza t icn

of rh e wnrh l , hUI the world I.'n'cct. :1 rererr itorializatiun or the bouk, which in turn

dcte rritu ria lizes its e lf in th e w CJ rIJ (i f ir is capable, i it ·:m). .\I im e si. is a \'ery had

COil .epr, since it relic . . on binary logic to Jell rib' phenomena ur:1I1 entircl~ differenr

natu re . T h e c rocod ile do c s nul rep rodu ce a tre e trunk , any m o re than th e c ha m ele on

r 'prmju 'I.'S the colors of its surruundines. The Pink P a n t h e r imitates nothing, it

rep ro du ces n oth ing , it p in ts th e w o rh l it color, p ink m p ill ; th is i. irs be c om i ng -

world, car r ied ( JUI in su ch J way th ar it becomes i rupercepr ible i lSdf . asigni fy ing

m akes its ru p tu re , irs OW11 lin e u f lIi~h t, fo llow s its "np ara lle l evolurion' r h r nugh to

the end , The wjsdcm uf rh e plants: even when they have rOUIS, there is : .lwaJ~ an

nu ide w he re Ih ey lilrm rh izom e w ith sern erh in g e lse with the w ind , an an im al,

hum an h -ing s (:Inu there i. 3~'() an asp 'C[ under w hich an im a ls them se l es fo rm

rh iz om e ..... a s d o people, etc.) ... Drunkenness as II rriu m ph uru irru ptio n I) f ihc p lan r in

us," l\hHI)S fo llnw rh e rh izom e by rup tu re ; le ng then , prolong, and re lay th e line o f

[light; make it v ary , unul ~IIU have produced the most ub 1(;11.'1and to rtuous of J ines

u r II dirncnsions and broken dire xions. Coniugatc dercrritorializcd flows, Follow the

ph Ill..-ou start by delim itin g a firs t lin t: consist i ng ' Ill' c irc le s o f conv erg en ce a round

. .u e ce s si vc s in g u la ri ti es ; th en you ·cc w he th er in ide I'hal line new circ le o f conv er-



gence establish themselves, with 1ll'11 points loetted outside the limits and in other

directions. \\ritl', form a rhiznrnc, increase vour territory bv dctcrruorializat ion.

extend the line of l1ight to the point where it becomes al l abstract machine covering

the entire plane of consisicncv. "(io first to your old plant and w.uch careful" the

watercourse made hv the rain. III n ow the rain must hav e ca rricc l th e secds far awav

Watch the crevices made In the runoff, and from them determine the direction of

the 11011. Then find the plant that is growing at the farthest point from lour plant.

:\11 the del ii's weed plants that are growmg in hct wccn are lours. Later ... \Oll canextend the size of lour tcrriror v 1)\ following till' watercourse from each point along

the \I;tl."" \\usic has always sent out lines of flight, like so many "rransformnt ional

multiplicities," even overturning t hc len codes that structure or arhorif. it; that is

w hv m usica l Io rrn , right c lown to its ruptures and proliferations, is cornp. r rahlc to a

weed, a rhizomc.'

In contrast to centered (even polyccnrric) svstcm-. with hierarchical modes of

communication and prccstahlishcd paths, the rhizome is an accntcrcd , nonlucrarchi-

cal, nonsignifnllg svsrcm without a (Jenera I and without an organizing mcmorv or

ccntr .r l automaton, defined solely III a circulation of states. \\'hat is at question in the

rhizome is a relation to scxuaht v hut also to the animal, t hc \'q~etal, thc world,

politics, the hook, things natural and artificial that is total" dillcrcn: from the

arborescent relation: all manner of "bccomings."

A plateau is always in the middle, not at the beginning or the end, .\ rhizome is

made of plateaus. Gregor', Bateson uses the word "plarcau" to designate sOlllcl hing

\'IT\ special: a continuous, self-vibrating region of intensities whose development

avoids a11\ orientation toward a culmination point or external end. Bateson cites

Balinese culture as an example: mother child sexual garnes, and even quarrels among

men, undergo this bizarre intensive stabilizat iun. "Some sort of continuing plateau of

inrcnsit v is subst irurcd fill' [scxu .il ] climax, w.ir, or a culmination point. [t is a

n:~n:t uhk charactenstlC of the \\("StLTll mind to reblc ex press Ions and act ions to

exterior or transcendent ends, instead of cvalu.u irur them on J plane of consIstency

on the basis of their intrinsic \aIUl·."" For example, a hook composed of chapter» has

culmination and termination points. \\hat takes plJce in a hook composed instead of

plateaus rh.u communicate w it h one another aLTOSSmir-rofissurcs. as in a brain; \\e

call a "plateau" a11\ rnuh iplici: \ connected to other muh iplicit ies hv superficial

underground stems in such a \lal ~IS to torm or extend a rhizome. \\c arc writing

this hook as a rhizome. It is composed of plateaus, \\\: han' gl\l'n it a circular lorrn,

hut only for laughs. Each morning Ill' would wake up, and each of us wuulc] ask

himself what plateau he "as going to tadle, writing file lines here, tell there. \\e

had hallucinaton experiences, \1c watched lines leave one plateau and proceed 10

another like columns of t inv ants. \\e made circles of convergence. Each plateau can

be read starting anvwhcrc and can be related to an x other plateau. To attain the

multiple, one III list have a method that cffcctivclv constructs it ; no tvpographical

3S4 P os t-st m If / I , . " ;'s III, IkI'll ns t I'll(I ion, PIIS t -r nad crni sn,

cleverness, no lexical agility, JlO blending or crc.uion of words, no svntacucal bold-

ness, can substitute lor it. In CICt, these arc more often than not rncrclv mimetic

procedures used to disseminate or disperse ~l unity that is retained ill a different

dimension for an image-book. Technonarcissism. Tvpographical. lexical, or syntacticcreations arc necessary onlv when rhcv no longer belong 10 the Iorm of expression of

a hidden unitv, becoming themselves dimens_ions of the multiplicity under consider-

ation; we onlv know of rare successes in this.' \\e ourselves IIere unable to do it, \\-e

;" .if : :M a ailt&Jt£dl -.



.·1 Thousand Plateaus 385

just used words that in turn function for us as plateaus. RHIZOMATICS = SCHIZO-

ANALYSIS =STRATOANALYSIS =PRAGMATICS =MICROPOLITICS. These wordsare concepts, hut concepts are lines, which is to say, number systems attached to a

particular dimension of the multiplicities (strata, molecular chains, lines of flight or

rupture, circles of convergence, etc.). Nowhere do we claim for our concepts the title

of a science. We are no more familiar with scientificity than we are with ideology; all

we know are assemblages. And the only assemhlages are machinic assemblages of

desire and collective assemblages of enunciation. No signifiance, no suhjectification:

writing to the nth power (all individuated enunciation remains trapped within the

dominant significations, all signifying desire is associated with dominated subjects).

An assemblage, in its multiplicity, necessarily acts on semiotic flows, material flows,

and social 110ws simultaneously (independently of any recapitulation that may be

made of it in a scientific or theoretical corpus). There is no longer a tripartite

division between a field of reality (the world) and a field of representation (the book)

and a field of subjectivity (the author). Rather, an assemblage establishes connectionsbetween certain multiplicities drawn from each of these orders, so that a book has no

sequel nor the world as its object nor one or several authors as its subject. In short,

we think that one cannot write sufficiently in the name of an outside. The outside

has no image, no signification, no subjectivity. The book as assemblage with the

outside, against the book as image of the world. A rhizome-hook, not a dichotomous,

pivotal, or fascicular book. Never send down roots, or plant them, however difficult

it may be to avoid reverting to the old procedures. "Those things which occur to me,

occur to me not from the root up hut rather only from somewhere about their

middle. Let someone then attempt to seize them, let someone attempt to seize a

blade of grass and hold fast to it when it begins to grow only from the middle."s

Why is this so difficult? The question is directly one of perceptual semiotics. It's not

easy to see things in the middle, rather than looking down on them from above or up

at them from below, or from left to right or right to left: try it, you'll see that

everything changes. It's not easy to see the grass in things and in words (similarly,

Nietzsche said that an aphorism had to be "ruminated"; never is a plateau separable

from the cows that populate it, which are also the douds in the sky).

History is always written from the sedentary point of view and in the name of a

unitary State apparatus, at least a possible one, even when the topic is nomads. What

is lacking is a Nomadology, the opposite of a history .... Even in the realm of theory,

especially in the realm of theory, any precarious and pragmatic framework is hetter

than tracing concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nothing. Impercept-

ible rupture, not signifying break .... The nomads invented a war machine in oppos-

ition to the State apparatus. History has never comprehended nomadism, the hook

has never comprehended the outside, The State as the model for the book and fur

thought has a long history: logos, the philosopher-king, the transcendence of the

Idea, the interiority of the concept, the republic of minds, the court of reason, the

functionaries of thought, man as legislator and subject. The State's pretension to be a

world order, and to root man. The war machine's relation to an outside is not

another "model"; it is an assemblage that makes thought itself nomadic, and the

hook a working part in every mobile machine, a stem for a rhizome (Kleist and

Kalka against Goethe) ....

.\ rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things,

interbeing, Intermezzo. The tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance, uniquely



Post-strurturalism, Deconstruction, Post-modernism

alliance. The tree imposes the verb "to he," hut the fabric of the rhizome is the

conjunction, "and ... and ... and ... " This conjunction carries enough force to shake

and uproot the verb "10 he." Where are you going? Where are you coming from?

What are vou heading for? These are torallv useless questions. Making a clean slate,

starting or beginning again from ground zero, seeking a beginning or a foundation _

all imply a false conception of voyage and movement (a conception that is method-

ical, pedagogical, initiatory, symbolic ... ). Hut Kleist, J .enz, and Buchner have an-

other way of traveling and moving: proceeding from the middle, through the middle,

coming and going rather than starting and finishing." American literature, and al-

ready English literature, manifest this rhizornaric direction to an even greater extent;

they know how to move between things, establish a logic of the A: - -: D , overthrow

ontology, do away with foundations. nullify endings and beginnings. They know how

to practice pragmatics. The middle is b v no means an average; on the contrary, it is

where things pick up speed. Brtmecn things does not designate a localizable relation

going from one thing to the other and hack again, hut a perpendicular direction, J

transversal movement that sweeps one and the other away, a stream without begin-

ning or end that undermines its hanks and picks up speed in the middle ...

Notes

U. Weinreich, W. Labov, and ,\1. Ilcrzo!" "Empirical Foundations lor a Theon of Language."

in \\. Lehmann and Y. Malkcicl (cds.), f)lIhl/II1IS [or IIIS/or/w/ l .mguist irs (I %H), p. 1 2 5 ; riled

ny Francoise Robert, "Aspects suciaux du changcmeru dans une grarnmaire !,cnl:ratiH:''' Lilli'

gagts, no .. 12 (December 1(73), p. 90 ITrans I

2 Bertil I\lalmhcrg, SOl' Trends 11/ I,II/gu/s/us, trans. Edward Carners (Stockholm Lund 1%4),

pp. 65 7 (the example of the Castilian dialect)

J Ernst jungcr. . ·I ppmrhcs: d rogu t' S 1' / trressr (Paris: Table Ronde, 1(74), p J04, sec. 2 1 1 1 .

4 Carlos Castaneda, T he 'l e a rl un es o( Don .711(/1/ (Hcrkelev: Univcrsiiv of California Press, 1971),

p. i l K .

S Pierre Boulcz, Conrrrsations IN/It Celcsnn Dc/iege (London: Lulcnhcrg Books, 1(76): "a seed

which you plant in compost, and suddenly it begins to prulileratc like a weed" (p. 1 5 ) and on

musical proliferation. "a music that Iloats, and in which the IHitin!, itself makes it irnpossihl«

for thc performer to keep in with a pulsed time" (p. 691translation modificdj)

6 Gregory Bateson, Sleps Iii all /;'11I/lIg)' II(Hmd (:'\CW York: Ballantine Books, 1972), p. 113. It

will he noted that the word "plateau" is used in classical studies of bulbs, tuners, and rhizomes;

see the entry for "bulb" in 1\1. II. Baillon, D i ct io nn a ir » d e bo t aniqur (Paris: l lacheuc, 11176-(2).

7 For example, jocllc de La Casinicrc, r lh so lu mr nt n ci cs sa tr r, T he Fme~I',I'III)' Book (Paris: Minuit,

1(73), a truly nomadic nook. In the same vein, see the research in progress at thc Montlaucon

Research Center.

H The D ia nrs of" F ranz K ajl:«, cd. Max Brod, trans. joscph Krcsh (1\CII York: Schockcn, 1 ( 4 1 1 ) ,

p. 1 2 .

9 Sec jcan-Cristophc Bailly's description of movement in German Romanticism, in his introduc-

tion to La Legcndc disperser: la drsrription till II/OII;'emcn/ dans /" rom ant umc allemand (Paris:

Union (icneralc d'Editions, 1(76), pp. IH IT.

Documents

deleuze 1000 plateaus chapter13