"Trees and Networks: Critique of rhizomatic thinking" by Carlos Reynoso. 
The purpose of this brief study is to identify, in the face of social sciences, embarazosasinexactitudes crossing the famous first chapter of A Thousand Plateaus (Deleuze yGuattari 2006 [1980]), one of the most celebrated books of what has occurred in llamarpos-structuralism. Although I tried to be myself when I was muyjoven Deleuze and although there have been anthropologists, geographers and urban planners who wanted to incorporate the reasoning of the raw text as empirical research in
show that follows will be evident methodological half the distance between
pose argumentative literary invoice (for him to be seductive, it is not the point here)
and the most basic requirements of scientific conceptualization.
Fritjof Capra Anticipating what would your networks quarter of a century later, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari
presented in Chapter signaled its rhizomatic model, showing the
like the opposite of hierarchy, a tree-like structures at
focused structures or structures without further. The authors write:
A [the] centered systems, the authors oppose acentric systems, networks
finite automata in which communication occurs between any two neighbors,
in which stems or channels do not preexist, in which all individuals are interchangeable, defined only by a state
at any given time, so that local operations are coordinated
and the end result is synchronized independently or global
of a central (Deleuze and Guattari 2006: 22).
Although dissent argues dualisms and dichotomies, Deleuze and Guattari
opposing end (a) a concept tree, hierarchical, branched, such as that allegedly embody
Chomsky, linguistics, structuralism, the binary logic, psychoanalysis and computer
and (b) the idea of \u200b\u200brhizome, incarnation the multiplicity of collective arrangements
of finite automata networks peering and
processes that are refractory to codification and genealogies (Op. cit.: 9-32).
The least convincing of this discourse is the assembly pirouette axiological
rhizome offsets, tree structures, straw figures identified with the plan
grammars and too readily identified with evil. Leaving aside the inaccuracies
proliferating discuss below, it is clear that these labels
deconstructionist zeal righteous (who aspire to be schizos but sound rather
1 See for example Crary and others (1986), Fischer (1995); Lotfalian (1996), Westwood and Williams (1997:
245-246, 251-252), Marcus (1998: 86), Hernandez (2000: 277), Llano and Valencia ( 2004); Cuthbert
(2006), Delgado (2007: 65, 188-119), Dovey (2005); Warf (2006: 36, 377), Taylor et al (2007: 259,
261-262, 263, 265 , 266, 268 n. 4), Oakes and Price (2008: 329), Wood (2009), Gregory and others (2009: 283,
502, 655, 717), Jose Perez de Lama [osfa] http:// www.hackitectura.net; Cobarrubias and Pickles (2009).
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking paranoid
2) incurred in excess of metaphor: or different grammatical gender
exist in the literature or can wrap the imagination are all substantially
tree or grammatical mechanisms or educts are centered systems
some intelligible sense, even when the plot was orchestrated and used rhizomatic Chomsky grammars, generative grammars
modeled nor its nothing but a fragment
outside of the linguistic competence of speakers, which is far from being imposed by a bureaucracy
tyrannical or totalitarian academia, it is assumed to be innate.
Trapped in the game of contrasts that has woven itself motivates and completely, proclaims
rhizomatic becomes skewed, black and white, lacking in detail:
not granted under any tree scheme (despite their productivity states) or
admits to herself any impediment, limit or contraindication. We have here a dialectical
as infallible as unfalsifiable: if it is heads I win, if you lose mint leaves.
Correspondingly, Deleuze and Guattari, careful to call these obstacles by
name, minimize, insult or hide under a thick layer of rhetoric
relevance of the issues on their own design specification rhizomatic strategy is inherently incapable of modeling
: memory, evolution, history, modeling
logical, mathematical and scientific, the algorithmic, ideology, hierarchies, structures, social networks
concrete, abstract machines, subjectivity, mathematics,
semantic systems, biological, cognitive and computer, systematic knowledge,
genetic and taxonomic stud, and of course, language as a system
and transformational generative linguistics as a theory (DG 2006: 16, 27, 519 -
522).
suspect, to all this, our authors have not read Chomsky or
have done very fast, thinking that the trees may eventually
scattered in his writings, illustrating a situational concept, form the core of his formulación.2
It is as if reading the manifesto that led Chomsky
rhizomatic, and therefore it should have been particularly scrupulous
had been intended to rush into a challenge suggested by cartoons and diagrams without
it mattered much what they had to recite texts from which they never heard the voice and
whom never even mentioned. Ultimately, Deleuze and Guattari have accomplished
silencing of the Other as exhaustive as the realism
ethnographic perpetrated on native anthropology, arming his lawsuit against authoritarianism
trees and grammars based on powers that prove to be unfounded
or extravagant and not according to what the authors might have challenged
said exactly. 2
Ultimately, it is impossible to know what Chomsky text may have read the authors if you really
have read some. Even in the essay "Postulates of Linguistics", the fourth chapter of A Thousand Plateaus
, packed with references, the authors write a sentence or any text appointing him, except
pointless dialogue between Chomsky and Ronat Mitsou. I understand that claim to have missed
essential readings (or be forgotten, misunderstood or misrepresented what has been carelessly read)
is a strong hypothesis on the evidence available to me, but more extreme still assert that Chomsky thought
what these authors want you to believe.
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
3
When a word is, Deleuze and Guattari remain around
vulgar connotations of the terms, clinging to stereotypes
emaciated and broad brush strokes in a matter that requires as
few extreme precision conceptual. For the general public, in effect, a grammar evokes a fee
mandarinescas rules and precepts that govern speech imperatives. However, the formal grammar of the first period
Chomsky grammars and rules of good talk
we've been in elementary school unfortunately share the same name.
If Chomsky grammars renounced decades (something Deleuze and Guattari
prefer to ignore) is because it has opted for more
cognitive abstract formalism and more refined adaptation. The grammars are no longer indispensable, is
true, but is offensive to the intelligence of the scientific community that someone
insinuates that those ideas of his early period have been for the mere coincidence of their names
just stupid Bossier school requirements and obtuse.
Here begins to perceive that Chomskyan linguistics and rhizomatic knowledge
are not in the same league and have the same impact of civilization. Malgrado
pride of our authors, the hierarchy of the complexity of Chomsky, well above any idea
postmodern, has been instrumental in the development of formal languages \u200b\u200band technology
that depend on them: not exist programming languages ,
or interpreters, or compilers, or theory automata, and programs based on finite automata
or computer networks or computer program as it
know them today had it not been a clarification of that nature. A clarification of mood
relational, analytical and sensitive to context, incidentally, that categorically
could not be done with a formalism based on the emergence and
in the juxtaposition of indistinct, homogeneous and interchangeable as is
articulates the principle that rhizomatic.
It is also true that only one of the four types identified by Chomsky (the store
processing automata languages independent of context) supports
represented by trees (Rose 2010: 159-176), yet, that is merely a representation
Alternatively, an educational resource among many that exist. It is imperative to use precisely
trees to lay out the grammar: you can choose to
matrices, process algebra, substitution rules, recursive lists, forms of Backus-Naur
, existential graphs, language in prose and even networks (Reynolds 2011: chap. 12). The
distinctive parts of the early Chomskyan grammars are also not
generative trees (dating back to structuralism Zellig Harris) but
rules transformation, which are impossible to express through wooded plots.
Chomsky's contribution (1956: 120-121), after all, was precisely
to have questioned the ability of generative rules (and the concomitant
tree diagrams) as suitable models of language competence.
assert that Chomskyan transformational generative grammar is based on expressions involving
tree and modes of agency and social power that secrete
terms such as "will divide each sentence into noun and verb phrase" or
(even more) argue that " Chomsky trees down
enReynoso constant relations - Criticism of rhizomatic thinking
4
between variables of power "such that" form grammatically correct sentences is [...]
condition prior to any submission to social laws "(DG 2006: 13, 104)
is an error of colossal magnitude. Not only is exaggerated and improbable
unfalsifiable in terms of political theory and anthropology, but is untenable as
predicate on the history of linguistic theory.
Any student of language knows, in fact, there are no such things as "generative trees constructed according
Chomsky's syntagmatic model "(p. 20), or" straight-line tree
Chomsky "(p. 96) or a" tree-root "
Chomsky that" responds to the binary logic "and then proceeds by dichotomy ( p. 13).
The very idea of \u200b\u200ba tree and it is foolish Chomsky: Chomsky uses the parse trees derived
previous structural linguistics to explain its scope, but more fundamentally to demonstrate
over whole chapters to be inadequate for understanding the
natural languages \u200b\u200b(cf. Chomsky 1974 [1959]: 51; compare the diagrams
Hockett [1971 [1958]: 160, 172, 173] or with the notation of Harris Zellig
1951, Chomsky 1956: 116-117). Less is still true that
Chomskyan grammar is a "marker of power" policy (DG 2006: 13) obsessed with teaching how to be built
grammatically correct sentences: it is rather the speaker-listener
who decided on the basis to their intuitive knowledge of a grammatically correct
(or theory of direction and ligament, the correspondence with a set of principles
) to which the competitive model should be adjusted.
Figure 1 - rewrite rule
Trees questioned constituent model by Chomsky are analogous
not a "binary logic" whatever the meaning of this expression. In
binary trees (if they are concerned) the binary relation to opposite truth values \u200b\u200b
(+/-) that are happening, in the trees of each constituent model
expression is replaced by a concatenation of others that can be more than two, which can
propose a choice among many options, and which may return a sign
that previously defined header or the expression itself (S ® SN + SV, SN ®
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
5
A + N; SV ® V + SN) (Figure 1). In these trees all branches
eventually connect with a single terminal symbol, while the binaries are binary trees
all the way down. None of the symbols of a sentence structure diagram is a really
value.
languages \u200b\u200bare independent of context, as is well known, one between
classes of formal languages \u200b\u200band in no way constitute a model of natural language or logos as
of rationality. Not even remotely terms
staying longer lined up in a structure (noun phrase, "for instance)
exercise some form of oppression which are below (“Artículo” o
“Nombre”). La idea de “subordinación” tiene aquí que ver con procedimientos seriales
de re-escritura o con pertenencia a conjuntos anidados, antes que con hegemonías dictatoriales
o subalternidades gramscianas. Si la pertenencia a clases implica jerarquía, entonces
también los elementos de una matriz celular, de una red o de un grafo pertenecen
a clases: vecindarios, cliques, comunidades, sub-redes, bloques, cuencas de atracción y
hasta árboles, o como quiera que se los desee organizar.
Tampoco poseen los algoritmos un signo político distintivo que defina quiénes habrán
de ser sus usuarios o las causas a las que resultarán funcionales: un izquierdista como
Noam Chomsky ha utilizado ocasionalmente árboles para ilustrar un punto, mientras un
ultraconservador como John Von Neumann desarrolló su estudio sobre máquinas que se
auto-reproducen en base al modelo “rizomático” de los autómatas celulares. Hay algo
de obsceno, por otra parte, en endilgar ideologías opresoras precisamente a Chomsky,
quien ha sido órdenes de magnitud más radical y consistente que Deleuze o Guattari en
lo que atañe a su militancia libertaria.
Dejando de lado unos pocos opúsculos característicamente autoindulgentes o técnicamente
descabellados (pienso en Chaosmose), no doubt that both Deleuze and Guattari
have been lavish in bright ideas. But the scheme holds rhizomatic
too weak spots manifested not only in his reading of the language
or formal sciences (whose myopia in the philosophical has been proverbial)
but full play to his vision of history culture and anthropology. In contrast with Western
tree and absolutist, for example, Deleuze and Guattari (Maoist
then) imagine a China and India where tyrants are magnanimous
and refined and the tree itself becomes rhizomatic Buddha (2006: 24).
To exemplify the case is striking for its lack of expertise in treating
cultural history and the sleight of essential data as it was in India
the burning of widows, of the Laws of Manu and hierarchy
most ruthless caste that knows where it originated Aṣṭādhyāyī [अ टा यायी] Panini
the mother of all grammars. And it was the Celestial Empire, which is painted a worldview imbued
rhizomatic dream, the place where the seventh century slaves were carried Zenjan
(now Zanzibar) and in the eleventh century were designed the
Yingzao Fashi [营造 法式] and what would the Yang Hui triangle, which are respectively the first grammar
architectural history and the first performance wooded
binomial coefficients (Oliver 1975: 192; Li 2001; figure 2). If múReynoso
- Critique of rhizomatic thinking
6
tonal music of the European tradition tree is considered as atonality or guidelines
Eastern manners are deemed rhizomatic (DG 2006: 98-99), when we look
music royalties China and India the distinction definitely not work, because both old
tonal systems shí Er Lu [十二律] or the gǔqín [古琴] as systems of rāgas
Karnataka Hindustan or regimes are more focused, hyper, and regulatory hierarchy
what ever the case in the Western world.
A raga regulates more than one mode or scale is a regulation that governs
scale, ascending and descending, emphasized notes, recording,
ornamentation, intonation and phrasing. A part made on a specific raga
be touched in some way carefully prescribed at a certain time of day and at particular times
year, at the risk of the occurrence of the misfortune or the cosmos
collapse if not made.
Figure 2 - Yang Hui triangle (public domain)
If it is intended that the "hierarchy" of a taxonomic system of class inclusion and
of a totalitarian political system are the same thing (matching that does justice neither to
the abstractions of logic or the materiality of the policy), then it is equally unacceptable
Deleuzian presumption that only in the West have been
Linnaean system of multiple levels, "signifying despotic" related to "logocentric modes"
knowledge (Pinzon Castano Suarez Ariza Prieto and Garay 2004: 20).
By contrast, cognitive anthropology has witnessed the existence of taxonomies partonomies,
binary trees and key qualifiers in oral and written tradition of virtual
all the languages, cultures and semantic fields, and beyond
long before the conceptual ethos of the West came even translated
(Tyler 1978, Reynolds 1986, D'Andrade 1994).
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
7
Along the same lines, there is nothing in a model involving grammatical hierarchy in the sense of a power
oppression exercised from "up" "down" unless we are desperate to reveal symptoms
hidden or provide transcendent meaning to the analogy
pilgrim, there is no certain and systematic echoes that
involvement in family trees, the diagrams anthropological kinship in the cladograms, phylogenetic
in diagrams or classificatory schemes. Both these
graphics as in the topology of the graph orientation and topology of conventional drawing
know: a device that varies also according to the direction in which they write and read the writing
circumstance of the language concerned. Just a
overlooks the cognitive anthropology, ethno or the componential analysis
be seen further that a tree that represents a paradigm orthogonal codes or
taxonomies can be transposed without loss of information to a matrix scheme more like a
rhizomatic cellular network than any other object (Reynoso 1986). By experimenting
with the rudiments of social network analysis is learned, likewise,
that every tree is likely to be represented as (or become) an array of switchable cells
impact qualitatively identical. Deleuze and Guattari
forget also that the key lies in formalism as
logic, not occasional or representation in the associations of ideas which it awakens;
representation is only a heuristic, a teaching device, an embodiment of an idea
image but not the idea itself. The hard-line mathematical
in graph theory, in fact, not designed primarily as graphs and line drawings
point but rather as arrays or collections of items: "People find useful
drawings (writes Lawler 1976: 20 .) Computers do not. " "It helps (get
to grant Bunke et al 2007: 32) represent graphs with a diagram. " Useful,
then, but not essential.
not true either that the mechanisms
grammatical language will necessarily lead contamination and that therefore the original sin logocentrism. While a grammar
(an algorithm or generative-transformational generative, after all)
can create so much trees as herbs, mazes, tiled, spiral, music, furniture
, rhizomes, house or city, a collection of finite automata equal
can be used (and in fact is what is used frequently) to model the raw
forms of social segregation (Sakoda 1971, Schelling 1969). If the rules are
touch stone and diagnostic signs of authoritarian another disappointment awaits us, it is conceivable grammars
whose operators are not rules, or unrestricted grammars type 0
processing recursively enumerable languages \u200b\u200bby Turing machines
canonical copies sanctioned by criminal of this variant, it is not possible, however,
implement finite automata networks unspecified transition rules.
The most inconvenient for rhizomatic ideology, I suppose, is that between trees and networks
there is not necessarily the opposition that proponents postulate.
From graph theory in more trees are just graphs (or networks) in
not have cycles or closed circuits: a special kind of a set that embraces both ideas
. And in addition to any network (network-wide, therefore) is hosting a
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
8
number grown, usually huge, spanning trees and all manner of structures, flows and trajectories
tree: a feature present in all copies of all
(Harary 1969: 32-42; Wilson 1996: 43-59; Balakrishnan 1997: 31-34; Bollobás
2001: 8-14).
Incidentally, I must say that trees have been known for encompassing a
time, and in 1886, Arthur Cayley [1821-1895] (the first mathematician who defined the group as a whole
generated by a binary operation and created the eponymous portentous
fractal graph) had developed a well-known formula, nn-
2 for the number of spanning trees that exist in a complete graph Kn (Cayley 1889, Wu and Chao
2004: § 2.1). This innocent-looking formula again shows the inadequacy of the antithesis
Deleuze and Guattari down trees and rhizomatic networks:
not only a tree is also a network, but every network has a formidable number of spanning trees
, nn-2 exactly. Print "hierarchical" to communicate
trees, on the other hand, depends on how they look at them or draw them (Reynoso
2010: 167-169).
suffices to model the same reality in a slightly different way for a tree
(for example) that only covers some relations of affiliation, alliance and consanguinity
becomes palpable in a dense network.
Or to put it another way, a wooded plot of relationship is in fact a network in which the
purposes of analytical clarity we have omitted some relationships.
few decades ago the philosopher Nelson Goodman (1972) warned us
on fallacies and dilemmas of analogies, the signs of similarities,
grouping into classes and competitions rigged. It is not necessary to subscribe to relativism
end to verify that, like many others, the popular opposition
networks and trees based on a false antinomy. If for some reason becomes unavoidable arbitrary
find the opposite "natural" cellular network that organizes itself, it is not in any way
a tree or a grammar analytically but more likely a top holistic model to down.3
deserves a separate paragraph exegesis of the characterization of the automata
cell constitute the formal archetype rhizomatic principle (DG 2006: 22).
As happens with tree algorithms this portrayal is also incorrect.
truth is that these automata there is no central authority to determine the status of the whole;
the elements of the system, however, are not independent and obey
to transition rules are generally global in nature (Reynolds 2010:
39-90). Particularly misguided is the notion that such a system
individuals are interchangeable and are only defined by their state.
first is highly unlikely and depend on distribution patterns in all, the "individual
3 In terms of generic algorithms, the opposite of a cellular automaton, for example, there must be a
Lindenmayer system but a system dynamics model. In a concrete implementation of
(say) a prediction model of urban sprawl, as opposed to cellular SLEUTH is
all respects Forrester's urban dynamics.
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
9
duos "(which would only be such in the usual sense of the word
depending on the interpretation to be given to the elements) are not defined solely by their state but also by
stages of their neighborhoods.
It is also inaccurate statement stating that the overall outcome or a set of finite automata
tend to synchronize more or less inexorable.
There are various synchronization phenomena studied in science complex (
Strogatz 2003), some specific rules (the simulation of Belousov-Zhabotinsky)
exceptionally give the impression of a global synchronization, but by no means such a pattern is peculiar or defining
cellular systems in general. Although you should first agree
very carefully what kind of rhythmic or periodic behavior can be considered
Synchro probability of a finite cellular automata system
adopt a behavior that typify most of us
as such has proven to be extremely small.
More erroneous assertion is still claiming that the binary logic tree models
have never understood the multiplicity and to get to two, three, four, etc. proceed serially
need and have a strong primary unit, a top- root
Grund, roots and fundations [sic] (DG 2006: 11, 13-15). In the complex science, in fact,
Lindenmayer systems or systems-L, based on automata strictly
tree store, deploy de manera ejemplar y a escala masivamente paralela
operaciones recursivas de sustitución que (junto a los algoritmos de enjambre y de colonia
de hormigas) se reconocen como la encarnación de la multiplicidad por antonomasia.
No hay en estos sistemas ninguna unidad principal a modo de pivote inmóvil: cada
operando existe sólo para ser sustituido la cantidad de veces que se quiera por cadenas
cuyos elementos serán a su vez objeto de sustitución. Aristid Lindenmayer era botánico;
en su modelo, para más añadidura, cuando se configura el axioma que convencionalmente
se toma como punto de partida no se habla de pivotes o de raíces, sino de
semillas, término que cubre both trees as rhizomes. L-systems are routinely used today
in various fields of knowledge, from architecture and urban design
musical composition, a company that Deleuze and Guattari said to be more rhizomatic
that tree (DG 2006: 99; Reynolds 2010: 159 -206).
The wrong argument rhizomatic model, finally, must be the
established not only that the trees are despotic but networks are inherently democratic.
This is an old truism of scientific literature that
still finds time to time. In The Web of Life Fritjof Capra (2003) has
coded grid vision that denies dignity to the nests and extols the egalitarianism
and benevolence of the networks self-organize a government without
or vertical hierarchy. Capra writes:
The vision of living systems and networks provides a new perspective on calls
hierarchies of nature. [...] [T] he web of life consists of networks within networks
. At every level and under closer scrutiny, the nodes of a network
revealed as smaller networks. We tend to organize these systems, all
nesting in larger systems, a higher hierarchical positioning above the lower
as an inverted pyramid, but this is not a projection huReynoso
- Critique of rhizomatic thinking
10 mana. In nature there is no "up" or a "down" or there are hierarchies. Just
networks within networks (Capra 2003: 54-55). Capra
Being an author who cites as his reference Bateson cardinal (cf. Capra 2003:
38, 72-74, 80, 174, 315-318) is inexplicable to denounce the constructed nature of
hierarchies ("a human projection ") while muting the fact that the networks and their nests are
equally arbitrary constructions, maps of a territory
by definition are only one class among the many kinds of possible maps.
yet we expect more inconsistencies. On the one hand, as a belief that "nature
[...] do not exist hierarchies" flatly ignored the findings of ethology
around the social organization of species, from ants to higher primates and
the brutal reality of the chains tróficas.4 On the other, enough to think of networks
white slavery or prostitution, or trafficking in slaves, infants,
arms, organs and drugs to verify On the other hand, without making reference to the cruel realization
the troublesome beginning of San Mateo (Merton 1968), which is not necessarily
in networks (as opposed to trees or hierarchies) a goodness,
harmony with nature or establishing egalitarianism.
In the field of complexity, in short, networks and finite automata
exist side by side with the grammar and all sorts of algorithmic principles, some very
abstract, others crammed with metaphor. All of them can be adapted to various purposes
or combine with each other when needed. Since it is doubtful that there is an investigation
ideologically neutral or free of human projections, whatever that may be.
But it would be famous nonsense and naive to pretend that merely unforgivable
zero-sum decision to promote an algorithm over another must be the political and theoretical struggle
more urgent that we should embark. Conclusions
is a long way from the literary or philosophical way of dealing with ideas and
requirements of scientific reasoning. As I understand, the latter involving
dialogical treatment of the sources, a sober examination of the state of affairs,
descriptive adequacy regime and an instrumental demo of which one often customary with obstinate
do without that (at seen) is triggered
scandal that should. They also imply suppressing
know the temptations of the spirit that approving more illusory
methods revealing: existential dilemmas diagnose or
ideological conspiracies where there is evidence that they exist, to attribute moral worth to mere inflections
arithmetic formalisms anthropomorphize, to confuse the properties of a en-
4 All are rhizomatic multiplicities, say the authors, arguing that the elements of a multiplicity
are interchangeable, that animals are when they go in droves rhizome and
no hierarchy within a rhizome or in nature without (DG 2006: 11-12). I invite you to think about dimensión
etológica de los enjambres, piaras y manadas, en las que la jerarquización, la imposición funcional y
el orden de picoteo llegan a generar extremos de dimorfismo sexual y social en una misma especie (machos
alfa, hembras alfa, hormigas obreras, soldados, jardineras, constructoras y machos fértiles, abejas
reinas y así hasta el éxtasis), para juzgar la congruencia de estas apreciaciones.
Reynoso – Crítica del pensamiento rizomático
11
tidad real con las de la herramienta abstracta que se le pudiera aplicar para comprenderla,
propiciar una compulsión a la diagnosis especulativa más fóbica y febril que la
del psicoanálisis mechanically or blame capitalism, patriarchy, logocentricism
positivism, a "whole of Western thought" (DG 2006: 23) or any
entelechy that none dare defend the real obstacles, imaginary and symbolic
us prevent envision the world as it is.
Around the world and having organizations and agencies will some perverse
judge alongside other charitable or supportive, some of them admit that
inquiries through tree formalism, rhizomatic or many other classes, or more
combined classes depending on the purposes of research and freedom to
should be given to the student to help us explain and transform reality through the instrument
it deems appropriate. Unless you give credit to a tissue of echoes and analogies
cosmic as that in which the obscurantist or
guenonianos blindly believe none of this is reason enough to glorify or condemn the
networks, trees, graphs , charts, algebras, rhizomes,
systems of finite automata or artifice whatsoever as alternative mechanisms
representation and modeling.
do not intend here to challenge the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari as a whole, or put into question their
figures language, or to oppose his philosophy to science: I mark,
simply the way to go for a model for the metaphor that inspires
be faithful to the truth in the facts referred to and sustainable methodologically
that promises made .
The problem with the rhizomatic assumption not only farm that is internally contradictory,
in not providing a reference implementation or lacking
of scholarly apparatus, but even as pure intellectual rumination has forced
clumsy, bombastic predictable. His insecurity on knowledge
linguistic, mathematical, historical and anthropological are at stake, his rimbombanciapedagógica without genuine support and superficiality with which the above issues as regards the epistemology of modeling and formal methods should not pass without consideration
. For the model proposed, twitching like few others, not
falls short of what the full social sciences need not show tampocola intelligence and rigor that Deleuze and Guattari have been able to offer its momentosmás fortunate. References
Balakrishnan, VK 1997. Theory and Problems of graph theory. London, McGraw-Hill.
Bollobás, Béla. 2001. Random graphs. 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bunke, Horst, Peter Dickinson, Miro Kraetzl and Walter Wallis. 2007. A graph-theoretic approach to enterprise network
dynamics. Boston-Basel-Berlin, Birkhäuser.
Capra, Fritjof. 1996. The web of life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
New York, Anchor Books. [English Translation: The web of life. 5 th edition,
Barcelona, \u200b\u200bAnagram, 2003].
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
12 Cayley, Arthur. 1889. "A theorem on trees." Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 23: 376-378.
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. "Three models for the description of language." IRE Transactions for
Information Theory, 2: 113-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109%2FTIT.1956.1056813.
Visitado en enero de 2011.
Chomsky, Noam. 1974 [1957]. Estructuras sintácticas. México, Siglo XXI Editores.
Cobarrubias, Sebastián y John Pickles. 2009. “Spacing movements: The turn to cartographies
and mapping practices in contemporary social movements”. En B. Warf y S. Arias
(compiladores), Op. cit., pp. 36-58.
Crary, Jonathan, Michel Feher, Hal Foster y Sanford Kwinter (compiladores). 1986. ZONE ½:
The contemporary city. Nueva York, Zone Books.
Cuthbert, Alexander. 2006. The form of cities: Political economy and urban design. Malden,
Blackwell Publishing.
D’Andrade, Roy Goodwin. 1994. The Development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 2006 [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. Madrid,
Pre-Textos.
Delgado, Manuel. 2007. Shifting companies: Steps towards an anthropology of the streets.
Barcelona, \u200b\u200bAnagram.
Dovey, Kim. 2005. Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne's urban waterfront. London, Routledge
.
Fischer, Michael MJ 1995. "Eye (I) ing the sciences and Their signifiers (Language, Tropes,
Autobiographers): Interviewing for a Cultural Studies of Science and Technology." In:
George Marcus (editor), Technoscientific imaginary: Conversations, profiles, and
memoirs. Chicago, The Chicago University Press, pp. 43-84.
Goodman, Nelson. 1972. Problems and projects. Nueva York, Bobbs Merrill.
Gregory, Derek, Ron Johnston, Geraldine Pratt, Michael Watts y Sara Whatmore
(compiladores). 2009. Dictionary of human geography. 5a edición, Chichester, Wiley-
Blackwell
Harary, Frank. 1969. Graph theory. Reading, Addison-Wesley.
Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Hernandez, Marie Theresa. 2000. “Technology, television, and myth: Reportajes de Alvarado
and the Story of Nuevo León”. En: George Marcus (editor), Para-sites: A Against
casebook cynical reason, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 257 -
286.
Hockett, Charles. 1971 [1958]. Course in modern linguistics. Buenos Aires, Eudeba.
Lawler, Eugene. 1976. Combinatorial optimization: Networks and matroids. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston
.
Li, Andrew I-kang. 2001. A shape grammar for teaching the architectural style of the Yingzao
Fashi. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Llano, Jose and Marco Valencia. 2004. "A brief genealogy of urban discourse: Tradition and crisis
thinking about the modern city." Urban design and landscape, year 1, No.
3.
Lotfalian, Mazyar. 1996. "A tale of an electronic community." In: George Marcus (editor),
Connected: Engagements on average. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago
Press, pp. 117-156.
Reynoso - Critique of rhizomatic thinking
13
Marcus, George. 1998. Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton, Princeton University
Press.Merton, Robert. 1968. "The Matthew effect in science." Science, 159 (3810): 56 -
63.
Oakes, Timothy and Patricia Price (eds). 2008. Cultural geography: A reader.
London and New York, Routledge.
Oliver, Roland. 1975. Africa in the Iron Age, C.500 BC-1400 AD. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. Pinzón
Castaño, Carlos Ernesto, Rosa Suarez and Gloria Garay Prieto Ariza. 2004. Network
worlds: popular culture address the challenges of the XXI century. Bogotá, Universidad Nacional de Colombia
.
Reynoso, Carlos. 1986. Theory, history and critique of cognitive anthropology. Buenos Aires,
Search-Yuchán.
Reynoso, Carlos. 2010. Analysis and design of the complex city: Perspectives from
urban anthropology. Buenos Aires, Editorial Sb
Reynoso, Carlos. 2011. Social Networks and Complexity: Models
interdisciplinary sustainable management of society and culture. Buenos Aires, Editorial Sb
Sakoda, James. 1971. “The checkerboard model of social interaction”. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 1: 119-132.
Schelling, Thomas. 1969. “Models of Segregation”. The American Economic Review, 59(2) :
488-493, Mayo.
Strogatz, Stephen. 2003. Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. Nueva York, Theia.
Taylor, Peter, Ben Derudder, Pieter Saey y Frank Witlox (compiladores). 2007. Cities and
globalization. Practices, policies and theories. Londres, Routledge.
Tyler, Stephen. 1978. The said and the unsaid. Mind, meaning and culture. Nueva York,
Academic Press.
Warf, Barney (compilador). 2006. Encyclopedia of human geography. Thousand Oaks-Londres,
Sage.
Westwood, Sallie and John Williams (eds). 1997. Imagining cities: scripts, signs,
memory. London and New York, Routledge.
Wilson, Robin. 1996. Introduction to graph theory. 4th edition, Essex, Addison Wesley.
Wood, Stephen. 2009. "Desiring docklands: Deleuze and urban planning discourse". PlanningTheory, 8 (2): 191-216.
Wu, Bang Ye and Kun-Mao Chao. 2004. Spanning trees and optimization problems. Boca Raton, Chapman & Hill / CRC.
