Questions

           Many of the chapters after the initial two are basically looking at a similar question when it comes to rhizomes.  That question being: Are lines defined by the rhizome, are the rhizomes defined by the lines, or are they so intertwined that we cannot tell which came first?  Deleuze and Guattari are able to answer this by stating that lines intertwine so well that a change in one is a change in many, so would that be the same in the rhizome? In the first chapter we learn that rhizomes can be changed and destroyed but they always crop up on old or new lines of thought.  When they change do they include original lines of flight, segmentation, and molecular lines?  If not, are they changed to be a different and more reterritorialized rhizome or do the lines fall in the same contexts?  When we combine suicidal tendencies, singularity of mind, and a war machine in every segment of the molar community do we always get fascism?  Or if the fascism’s lines of flight or segmentation are clouded by something like a pocket of self-preservation, or a people’s desire to have freedom does that change the creation of the rhizomematic being?  Does the creation of the same type of rhizome depend on the same intersecting lines or can they be adjusted to the differing conditions of human existence?  Are there really changing conditions in human existence?

                I don’t feel up answering some or all of these questions at this point.  However, the fluidity of Deleuze and Guattari’s writing leads me to think that some, or all, of these questions were meant to be open ended.  Greatly these questions depend, like the creation of a rhizome, upon the individual circumstances of the situation that they are being applied to.  Although I do believe that there are new circumstances within our society, I do believe that once distilled down to the inherent components those new circumstances will reveal age old situations.  However, it is the combination of these situations that yield the new individual circumstance or moment in time.  For instance, many of the things that Deleuze and Guattari are writing about are not new, they have only been re-appropriated and manipulated to address the world that they were brought together in and the world that they see will be coming (the constantly shaping now).  They used methods and ideas from throughout the ages to address the fascistic horrors that they witnessed first and second hand within this century and addressed the concerns of our now.  They do address the issues well, and I understand their usefulness in our society but my question that has been growing throughout the text is: How do we re-appropriate these terms and ideas to our lives today?  How do we propose these terms will change in twenty years?  Fifty?  A hundred?

                Last week in class someone stated that Foucault said that A Thousand Plateaus is the handbook against fascism.  I would whole heartedly agree with this.  However, what is our handbook for now?  Are we really fighting pure and simple fascism?  Or are there a thousand new strains of fascism throughout the world due to the rise and takeover of technology?  What of the international conglomerates that seek to eradicate freedom of expression?  What of the constant war within third world countries?  I do not see these situations as all explained by this book, but their fluid ideas portray solutions to the new circumstances that we have in our society.  They do give us the tools to understand and fight the new fascistic tendencies in our societies.  It is our responsibility as tuned in individuals to make decisions that are along the same rhizomatic and arboreal thought patterns as this work. 

                One last parting question: What is the most important factor in this society that leads to the changing of rhizomatic structures?  I would propose the intense demand on time and our constant lack of attention to one single process or idea.  We are constantly confronted with a schizophrenic view of our lives and how we want to live our lives; a constant battle between binaries.  This battle forces time to become the most important variable.  To truly understand and work in anti-fascist way we have to commit time, more than anything, to becoming free of fascist tendencies.