stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

that units develop themselves through relations. “In contrast to centered (even polycentric)
systems with hierarchical modes of communication and preestablished paths, the rhizome is an
acentered, nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizing
memory or central automaton, defined solely by a circulation of states” (TP 21). In this sense,
Deleuze and Guattari argue for the body without organs not so much to claim that a living body
ought to be disorganized. (The title of the sixth plateau is “How Do You Make Yourself a Body
Without Organs”). Instead, they argue that a living body not be organized organically. “We come
to the gradual realization that the BwO is not at all opposite of the organs. The organs are not its
enemies. The enemy is the organism…The BwO is not opposed to the organs; rather, the BwO
and its ‘true organs,’ which must be composed and positioned are opposed to the organism, the
organic organization of the organs” (TP 158). Thus, Deleuze and Guattari argue that a living
body be organized rhizomatically. But what does this mean other than they argue that the living
body become? “The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest capture,
offshoots...What is at question in the rhizome is a relation to sexuality—but also to the animal,
the vegetal, the world, politics, the book, things natural and artificial—that is totally different
from the arborescent relation; all manner of ‘becomings’” (TP 21). The living body is not. Or
ought not to be. Instead, the living body becomes. It ought to become. “The tree is filiation, but
the rhizome is alliance, uniquely alliance. The tree imposes the very ‘to be,’ but the fabric of the
rhizome is the conjunction, ‘and...and...and...’ This conjunction carries enough force to shake
and uproot the very ‘to be’” (TP 25). But why ought it? In “Deleuze’s Practical Philosophy” Paul
Patton argues “Deleuze and Guattari do not provide any explicit defense or justification of
normative principles. Rather, the elaboration of their ontology of assemblages provides a
demonstration of such principles (in the sense of presenting or showing rather than deducing
239