Heterogenity. Rhizomes can be heterogeneous, which means that they can be made up from diverse elements: animal, vegetable, mineral, and abstract entities can all connect together into a heterogeneous thing. In his Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics John Law suggests that Actor Network Theory is “an empirical version” of D&G’s “nomadic philosophy”, and notes that Latour himself observes that talk of “actor-rhizomes” could be an alternative to “actor-networks”. So instead of ANT, we might have “actant-rhizome ontology”. All of this was a bit of a eureka moment to me when I thought about it: ANT tells us that concepts and objects are also part of our social network; D&G tell us that rhizomes are heterogeneous – similar points are being made in different ways. To put it another way, they are both types of material semiotics – which is to say that they both map the relations between things and concepts.1 and 2. Principles of connection and heterogeneity: any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be.
So that’s some big words cut down to size 🙂
I think the heterogeneous bit is the crucial term.It departs from seeing complex objects as either explicable by a simple essence (like something ‘natural’ or individual’) or having some defining ‘facts’ (like class or gender membership) that can be studied scientifically. Thus are two main props of ‘normal thought’ disposed of with one blow! Good idea to explore links with ANT, by the way — I haven’t thought about that for some time.
Thanks, Dave. Talking to you over the last few weeks has really helped me to think this through.
Objects combining with human agency to produce?
Ukulele Lady
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw2HpCmQe4
Nice one Scott. Yes, absolutely.