Arborescence
From Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Deleuze and Guattari write about arborescent thought, which they "oppose" to rhizomatic thought, in the first chapter of ATP: "Introduction: Rhizome". Like other Deleuzian oppositions, this is not as simple as other binary oppositions. In many instances, they inhabit each other's space and even feed off each other: arborescent thought feeds off of rhizomatic thought and converts it back into arborescent thought, while rhizomatic thought takes arborescent structures as a springboard for its lines of flight.
An arborescent root-book: Two sorts of arborescent books: the root-book and the radicle-book.
A. The root-book: - operates through successive dichotomization. - treats "what it talks about" as its object, so that it is a representation of the world. Its object in the world is therefore separate from it, and the book's value rests upon how faithful it is to its object. Why is this concept associated with the concept of a tree? Because this sort of book's law is "the law of reflection, the One that becomes two" (ATP 5). What was merely nature has become nature + book, in a similar way to a single root that breaks into two root stems as it reaches down into the soil:
()()() branches, leaves, (dichotomous structure) ()|() branches, leaves (dichotomous structure) | stump | central root ^ dichotomous root structure, One becomes two / \ dichotomous root structure, now two root stems ^ ^ dichotomous root structure, two becomes four
D&G label this the "oldest and weariest kind of thought" (ATP 5). D&G were anti-representation, anti-mimesis, when it comes to literature, art, & books. Art, literature, & philosophy (as well as the role of thought) should not be mistaken with ways to show us the world, or to represent it. The role of literature, philosophy & art is to join and thereby provoke the creative fluxes of reality which are continually producing difference, in other words, they should open themselves up to "becoming", or dynamic change, instead of attempting to portray themselves as fixed, static structures. Artistic & literary works, as well as philosophical concepts, are events in the world, just as the event of a mother lion sinking her teeth into a baby water buffalo is an event in the world. Arborescent thought merely tries to imitate events or "facts", and the only way to repeat for Deleuze is through difference. For example, Diderot asked the rhetorical question of how it was possible to imitate the Romans if the Romans didn't have any Romans to imitate, and D&G might respond that it is impossible because the traditional concept of imitation is necessarily flawed- a creative act (or even an event) cannot itself be repeated. Reality, as a temporal flux which constantly creates more difference, is not to be thought of as something which can be broken down into parts (moments, or other periods of time) and imitated or represented through words or images- we should rather assume an active role in the process of creation.
B. The radicle-book. D&G also call this a "fascicular root system". A few of the definitions of "fascicle", according to dictionary.com, are "a small bundle of nerve or muscle fibers", "a close cluster, as of flowers or leaves", or "a section of a book or set of books that is being published in installments as separate pamphlets or volumes". The important detail to keep in mind is that the multiple does not escape the over-arching unitary nature of the radicle or fascicular root, just as the multiple axons which make up a nerve cannot escape the unitary structure of the nerve cable bundle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve). Instead of the root breaking off into only two strands as in the root-book (A), here, the tip of the root may be severed, and multiple strands grafted onto the central stem, which in turn develop and reach down into the soil.
| O ////\\\\\
D&G's disinterest in the radicle root-book seems to stem (sorry) from the fact that the multiple grafts remain connected and tied down to the unitary root to which they pay allegiance, which in turn seems to be associated with the authorial subject: "...the fascicular system does not really break with dualism, with the complementarity between a subject and an object, a natural reality and a spiritual reality: unity is consistently thwarted and obstructed in the object, while a new type of unity triumphs in the subject" (ATP 6). They remain unitary, centrally organized, even secretly and more extensively unitary. Since for D&G, rhizomatic structures, creation and lines of flight admit of no central structure or central controlling authoritarian power structure or root, but are necessarily open to the world and its affects, the radicle book is held back by the central originary root from entering a line of flight.
