The Conquest of America: The Internet as a Rhizome

Andy Warhol, Liberty

Deleuze and Guattari (= D&G) are undoubtedly prophets of modern times.

Their philosophy marked a global shift in our understanding, outlining contours of the new world and of posthumanity, which are only today becoming realities.

Perhaps they even better understood today’s us — where we come from and why — than we understand ourselves, while being already within the world they predicted. More precisely, D&G showed the absurdity of any “from” and “why” in relation to modernity.

The method of comprehending and producing forms of sociality they proposed is radically different from the one still more habitual to us, that is, the teleological one, which tries to answer the question “why, what for?,” and in doing so, prescribe intelligent design and strict hierarchies.

The term “Rhizome”, as well as nomadism, are key philosophical concepts that D&G apply to the non-teleological description of the world.


D&G borrowed the term rhizome from botany, where it is defined as a creeping stem that can generate shoots of a new plant, thus allowing the mother plant to constantly spread and survive even during cold seasons.

In the philosophical interpretation of D&G, the concept of rhizome is opposed to the root, or tree structure, which is associated with traditional worldviews. Trees and roots spread in depth, have a center and are organized according to the hierarchical principle, while the rhizome spreads in breadth and has a structure with a missing center, reflecting flat, interspecific, and non-hierarchical connections.

A rhizome as a model of culture, history and sociality is opposed to the root-like traditional organizational structure, which is a searching for the original source, one that returns to itself, or crowns its tip by going back to its peak, in which it finds its completion. Rhizome “has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo” (D&G).

A rhizome is not organized from the center or axis, or some underlying structure and does not refer to the source or the prototype. It exists in the form of transformation, modification, extension, capture, and branching.

“The tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance, uniquely alliance. The tree imposes the verb “to be” but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, “and … and … and…”This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb “to be.” Where are you going? Where are you coming from? What are you heading for? These are totally useless questions ”(D&G).

A rhizome continuously generates connections between the elements that constitute it. That is, its elements are modifiable, detachable, connected and reversible. It is a metaphor of a network of multiple non-linear non-hierarchical connections as opposed to hierarchical structures of society and social order.

Despite this disorder, the rhizome is stronger than the root. It can be broken or interrupted in any certain place, but due to its organization it is always renewed again. D&G give the examples of ants and water. It is impossible to get rid of ants ”because they form an animal rhizome that can rebound time and again after most of it has been destroyed” (D&G).

The rhizomatic model of culture “spreads like the surface of a body of water, spreading towards available spaces or trickling downwards towards new spaces through fissures and gaps, eroding what is in its way. The surface can be interrupted and moved, but these disturbances leave no trace, as the water is charged with pressure and potential to always seek its equilibrium, and thereby establish smooth space.”(D&G).

Any place of the rhizome can be connected to any other place and generates a temporary collective constellation, which is not a stable unity, but rather a pulsating zone of temporal stability.

Thinking in categories of constellations can be presented as a specific way of delineating the contours of reality. We are accustomed to comprehend reality in a certain (tree-like) manner, often without even realizing that this manner can be changed. In fact, there is no need to delineate reality in this manner. Our habitual frames for drawing the contours of reality are the entities with which we impute immutability — identities, dogmas, and institutions of power. D&G show that the boundaries of these unities are shiftable — identities are not set in stone, they do not exist, there are only temporary pulsating configurations. For example, D&G talk about a configuration that can be made up of the synthesis of man and horse — a nomad. Or the synthesis of man and plow, man and speech.

Another important concept, borrowed by D&G from biology, is mutualism. It denotes a state of interspecific cooperation as the way two organisms of different species form a set that is not tied to any common origin. A mutualism perspective allows us to perceive reality not from the point of view of individual stable entities, but from the point of view of unstable connections, which, contrary to tree-like logic, are functional.


The ethnographic understanding of rhizome corresponds to a nomadic culture, while the root and the tree to a sedentary one. A sedentary model is inactive, it sets boundaries and aims to annihilate its motion.

A nomad is a creature from nowhere, without roots, Nomads move not from the point of origin to the final point, but always start from the middle, not across the territory, but erasing territoriality itself, not striving for the final point, but existing in motion.

The nomadic model is opposed to a centrally organized model or territorial state, since nomadism indicates an open and unlimited space of uncentered multiplicity, which, according to the principles of the rhizome, gets rid of any centralizing force.

Nomads challenge the repressive, sedentary organized state apparatus, where nations or social groups oppose themselves to other groups and the rest of society.

While the state seeks to consolidate territory through the establishment of boundaries (the ‘great divide’ between ‘us and them’, ‘then and now’) and control of the occupied space, the nomads exist in motion, they do not consolidate the territory, but constantly move, creating an open transformative space of existence.

D&G argue that nomads are the “war machine” that constitute opposition to the state apparatus. Nomadic war is not a war in the conventional sense. The movement of a nomad should not be understood vis a vis analogy with the state’s territorial expansion; in the case of nomads, it is not a seizure of territory and securing borders, but an extraterritorial movement — an endless movement from the middle, the aim of which is not the termination of movement that follows after its seizure.

Nomadic expansion is liberating, since it does not aim at protecting a certain territory or a certain identity, on the contrary, it liberates from repressive certainty and immutability.

Liberation war is the natural form of existence of a nomad. The nomad is a free warrior, whom D&G place in opposition to the loyal subject who is generated and subjected to government regulations.

Nomadic expansion does not impose specific content — it has no goal outside of movement itself. It is not a struggle of nations and identities with each other for physical or abstract territories or positions within established hierarchies. Its movement is for the sake of movement. Transformation for the sake of transformation. Such a movement coincides with the movement of thinking and cognition, which, if they stop, lose their essence and turn into the propaganda of dogmas.


D&G contrast the dominance of the tree in the West to the dominance of rhizome in the East. This difference is visible in the way of perception and modeling of the world.

“Western bureaucracy: its agrarian, cadastral origins; roots and fields; trees and their role as frontiers; […] feudalism; the policies of the kings of France; making property the basis of the State; negotiating land through warfare, litigation, and marriages” (D&G). The East is not devoid of tree or root, but it is much easier to depict an Orient of Rhizomes. In the Orient the State does not act following the preestablished and rooted classes; its bureaucracy is one of channels. D&G talk about eastern hydraulic power with “weak property,” , where the state functions as a river. The Eastern despot “ flows with the current rather than sitting under a tree,” — whatever that means — “Buddha’s tree itself becomes a rhizome” (D&G).

In their reflections on the rhizomatic and the tree-like, America, for D & G, is given a special place. It embodies the decisive moment of rhizomatic expansion — it constantly shifts and moves its frontiers, turning the tree-like into rhizomatic.

America is positioned oppositional to the search for roots and the desire to return to the old world. This is the point where the world loses its origins, the beginning point is from the middle, it removes the foundation, annihilates the end and the beginning. America has no origin and ancestors, it appeared as a result of breaking with its sources and is moving thanks to an external consistent increase in immigration.

America is not free from the domination of trees and the search for roots — with its tendency to search for national identity (and preservation of a certain territory assigned to it), “Nevertheless, everything important that has happened or is happening takes the route of the American rhizome: the beatniks, the underground, bands and gangs, successive lateral offshoots in immediate connection with an outside ”(D&G).

According to D&G, America connects the rhizomatic with the tree-like and generates the core and mechanism of inverting the tree into the rhizome. It reverses the directions, putting its Orient in the West, “as if it were precisely in America that the earth came full circle” (D&G).

From a traditional tree-like point of view, the American inversion of a tree into a rhizome looks like a breakdown, or madness. D&G talk about the schizophrenicity of rhizome. In their interpretation, schizophrenia is a syndrome of inconsistency, a movement of deterritorialization, which is always in flight from itself. At the same time, schizophrenia is a breakdown that works. According to D&G, “No one has ever died from contradictions. The more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenises, the better it works, the American way ”(D&G).

Drawing from D&G’s thoughts, apart from the distinction between the West and the East, today one can draw a more apparent distinction, the one between the image of rhizomatic America and tree-like Russia. Russia, with its “special way” of returning to its origins, its obsession with traditional values, the idea of spiritual renewal, tsarism, strictness of hierarchy and privileges, is an ideal example of tree domination.

Such a perspective helps explain the Russian vision of America as something broken, wrong, perverted and morally rotting.

Although within such a distinction America and Russia are exaggerated abstract figures, nevertheless, past histories of real countries and the dialectics of their policies can be analyzed from the perspective of this distinction. According to Ivan Kurilla, the formation of America and Russia occur rather in conditions of close mutual influence (even if each of the countries perceived the other as its opposite), rather than in conditions of confrontation and conflict. In considering the dialectic of Russian and American as a confrontation between the rhizomatic and the root-like, it should be taken into account that, simultaneously, real Russia is not deprived of the American, and real America is not deprived of the Russian.

It can be argued that Trump is not the president of America, but that, rather, he is a Russian phenomenon. Even at the level of action, as Kathleen Hall Jamison argues in her book “Cyberwar”: it was Russian trolls and hackers who pulled the voting levers and changed the outcome of the 2016 election. Russia very likely delivered Trump’s victory, the American media just inadvertently helped to achieve Russia’s goals.

In April 2019 The Mueller Report on the Investigation of the Russian efforts to interfere 2016 US elections was released.

The Washington Post’s review of The Mueller Report says that it “was by and large an affirmation of the mainstream media’s investigative reporting. Almost all the big stories were confirmed in the report”.

Trump’s anti-immigration policy and its slogan MAGA (Make America Great Again) are diametrically opposed to the essence of rhizomatic America. The anti-immigration policy contradicts its rhizomatic openness to immigrants. MAGA, suggesting a look back at the origins and historical greatness, appeals to some other, Russian America — America of roots. If this slogan would apply to rhizomatic America, it would mean a call to suicide of America as a nation, since if there is any “greatness” to rhizomatic America, that would be the absence of tree-like origins and, thus, of the greatness itself in its traditional understanding.

It is clear that D&G’s rhizomatic America is an abstract image, which is not entirely coinciding with that real country called America. Rhizomatic America, rather, refers to the image of a dream about a new world, only conditionally tied to a certain territory.


Nomadism, which characterizes America, implies a special type of social connection. The rhizomatic sociality peculiar to such America is devoid of strict hierarchy, that is, fixed vertical relations of subordination and domination. For social rhizomes, connectivity and syntheses are primary, they precede the elements into which they break up.

The dream of a rhizomatic America that inverts trees into a rhizome was colorfully described by American poet and public figure Langston Hughes. In his poetry, America is presented as a dream of a new world, where the boundaries of identities and hierarchies dissolve into the common work of liberation. America, or rather America-dream, is the result of the joining of the hands of the people working in the name of freedom. Hughes talks about America as a synthesis of humans and dreams, humans and work, humans and freedom. Hughes’s poem “Freedom Plow” well deserves to be quoted here:

When a man starts out with nothing,

When a man starts out with his hands

Empty, but clean,

When a man starts to build a world,

He starts first with himself

And the faith that is in his heart-

The strength there,

The will there to build.


[T]he dream becomes not one man’s dream alone,

But a community dream.

Not my dream alone, but our dream.

Not my world alone,

But your world and my world,

Belonging to all the hands who build.

A long time ago, but not too long ago,

Ships came from across the sea

Bringing the Pilgrims and prayer-makers,

Adventurers and booty seekers,

Free men and indentured servants,

Slave men and slave masters, all new-

To a new world, America!

With billowing sails the galleons came

Bringing men and dreams, women and dreams.

In little bands together,

Heart reaching out to heart,

Hand reaching out to hand,

They began to build our land.

Some were free hands

Seeking a greater freedom,

Some were indentured hands

Hoping to find their freedom,

Some were slave hands

Guarding in their hearts the seed of freedom,

But the word was there always:


Down into the earth went the plow

In the free hands and the slave hands,

In indentured hands and adventurous hands,

Turning the rich soil went the plow in many hands

That planted and harvested the food that fed

And the cotton that clothed America.

Clang against the trees went the ax into many hands

That hewed and shaped the rooftops of America.

Splash into the rivers and the seas went the boat-hulls

That moved and transported America.

Crack went the whips that drove the horses

Across the plains of America.

Free hands and slave hands,

Indentured hands, adventurous hands,

White hands and black hands

Held the plow handles,

Ax handles, hammer handles,

Launched the boats and whipped the horses

That fed and housed and moved America.

Thus together through labor,

All these hands made America.


A long time ago, but not too long ago, a man said:






His name was Jefferson. There were slaves then,

But in their hearts the slaves believed him, too,

And silently took for granted

That what he said was also meant for them.

It was a long time ago,

But not so long ago at that, Lincoln said:




There were slaves then, too,

But in their hearts the slaves knew

What he said must be meant for every human being-

Else it had no meaning for anyone.

Then a man said:



He was a colored man who had been a slave

But had run away to freedom.

And the slaves knew

What Frederick Douglass said was true.

With John Brown at Harper’s Ferry, Negroes died.

John Brown was hung.

Before the Civil War, days were dark,

And nobody knew for sure

When freedom would triumph

‘Or if it would,’ thought some.

But others new it had to triumph.

In those dark days of slavery,

Guarding in their hearts the seed of freedom,

The slaves made up a song:

Keep Your Hand On The Plow! Hold On!

That song meant just what it said: Hold On!

Freedom will come!

Keep Your Hand On The Plow! Hold On!


America is a dream.

The poet says it was promises.

The people say it is promises-that will come true.

The people do not always say things out loud,

Nor write them down on paper.

The people often hold

Great thoughts in their deepest hearts

And sometimes only blunderingly express them,

Haltingly and stumblingly say them,

And faultily put them into practice.



Land created in common,

Dream nourished in common,

Keep your hand on the plow! Hold on!

If the house is not yet finished,

Don’t be discouraged, builder!

If the fight is not yet won,

Don’t be weary, soldier!

The plan and the pattern is here,

Woven from the beginning

Into the warp and woof of America:







Who said those things? Americans!

Who owns those words? America!

Who is America? You, me!

We are America!

To the enemy who would conquer us from without,

We say, NO!

To the enemy who would divide

And conquer us from within,

We say, NO!




To all the enemies of these great words:

We say, NO!

A long time ago,

An enslaved people heading toward freedom

Made up a song:

Keep Your Hand On The Plow! Hold On!

The plow plowed a new furrow

Across the field of history.

Into that furrow the freedom seed was dropped.

From that seed a tree grew, is growing, will ever grow.

That tree is for everybody,

For all America, for all the world.

May its branches spread and shelter grow

Until all races and all peoples know its shade.


America belongs to the wanderers who collaborate in the realization of the dream of freedom, commonly inverting the tree into a rhizome.

In another poem, Let America Be America Again, Hughes admits that America never became America for him, but remained only an unfulfilled dream, which, nevertheless, one day will come true:

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed —
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.


Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain —
All, all the stretch of these great green states —
And make America again!

The Statue of Liberty

The monument which most embodies the America-dream is the Statue of Liberty, erected in 1886 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. It welcomes immigrants to the Land of the Free. It embodies the Goddess Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom and embodiment of liberty. Libertas was usually portrayed as a matron with a laurel wreath or a pileus — a conical felt cap given to freed slaves.

The full name of the Statue of Liberty is Freedom Enlightening the World. Instead of pileus she wears a diadem on her head that forms a halo that resembles the sun — the symbol of enlightenment. The seven rays form a halo evoke the seven seas, and the seven continents, pointing to the universal concept of freedom. She holds in her hands the symbols of enlightenment — the torch and the tablet.

The Statue of Liberty, of course, was given to America by France, it was designed by French sculptor Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi.

In 1903, Emma Lazarus’s sonnet “The New Colossus” was cast onto a bronze plaque and mounted inside the pedestal’s lower level of the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

It is noteworthy that, like everything American, the Statue of Liberty embodies the breakdown of meaning. It was originally conceived as a symbol of America’s independence as a nation, and not as a symbol of immigration. Paul Auster wrote that “Bartholdi’s gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but ‘The New Colossus’ reinvented the statue’s purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world.”[11]

The message set forth in the New Colossus is often compared with the words of Jesus: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest”. Both messages coincide in their intention of caring for the expelled, but the type of care is radically different. Liberty protects enlightenment and the thirst for freedom — the most painful, uncomfortable and exhausting phenomenon. She supports those who are willing to work together to bear the heavy burden of freedom and enlightenment, while Jesus imposes the ultimate truth and promises to ease the burden of freedom (“take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in”. He does not protect freedom, does not call to seek truth, but gives truth. “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right”.

Jesus is a tree of trees, a symbol of Christian teleological understanding of the world. The Statue of Liberty rather symbolizes a rhizomatic mother, it is not a refuge of outcasts and wanderers, where they will cease to be such, for she embodies a space where they can remain to be such — eternal free wanderers, never ceasing their movement and search.

Online Community

Hughes was right — America-dream, attached to the country called America, has failed.

This attachment itself was a problem, since the rhizome cannot be enclosed within the framework of the territory of a particular state. The only opportunity to carry on the America-dream is to free it from the territory.

D&G’s conceptualization of rhizome and nomadism predicted the next stage of the expansion of the American frontier — the opening of a space that is more suitable for the realization of the ideals of freedom and enlightenment.

This new frontier is online communities, the “World Wide Web”. It was the appearance of the internet into mainstream society that most precisely embodied ​​D&G’s idea of the American inversion, in which the world comes to its full (territorial) circle and reaches a new level (deterritorialization).

The concepts of rhizome and nomadism are most easily applicable to the description of the Internet. The original impetus for its creation came from the need of the federal government of America to develop a fast and reliable data exchange that could not be disabled by a Soviet nuclear attack.

The trigger for the development of the Internet was the Soviet Union’s launch of the first-ever artificial satellite into Earth’s orbit, in 1957. A few months later, the US Department of Defense created the ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency). The agency was later renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which emphasized a reorientation towards tactical military defense.

Before ARPA’s invention of the World Wide Web, similar connections resembled a tree, rather than a network, since they were organized in accordance with the principle of centralized subordination to the host computer. Such connections were unreliable, since it was enough to disable the root (turn off the main computer) so that the entire system would stop functioning.

The ARPA project proposed a communication structure in which each computer would be “for itself”, that is, if one computer fails, the rest will still be able to transmit data over the surviving lines of communication. This network was named ARPANet. Ten years later, ARPANet turned into a modern internet network that would come to blanket the entire planet.

The emergence of the Internet can be considered a mistake — a deviation from the original intention. While originating with the aim of defending the state, ARPANet reversed its meaning to the opposite, potentially undermining the very idea of ​​the state.

The absence of a central point of control over all elements of the global network suggests that it is organized as a rhizome and the laws of nomadology are applicable to it. From the moment of its appearance it was loaded with liberatory hopes. At a minimum, it can be considered a transition to extra-territorial modes of existence, that is, a way of escaping from the existing repressive social regimes. As a maximum, the embodiment of a new dimension that breaks radically with the framework of the past, the form of existence with capabilities much larger than the habitual space of life — a new planet discovered on this planet.

The Internet is a rhizomatic field, which breaks the limits of territorial space and opens up new horizons of sociality, accelerating the transformation and intensifying social interactions.

In her book The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, Astra Taylor points out that the online world to a large extent still retains deficiency of the old world. However, she agrees that the online world does offer a unique opportunity, it’s just “If we want the Internet to truly be a people’s platform, we will have to make it so” (Taylor).

The Internet is not without the influence of governments and media business, but nevertheless, it’s determining tendency is the growth of horizontal networks of interaction that are able to remain independent from governments and media business. For the first time in history, the Internet has made possible the emergence of truly mass independent forms of cooperation. Social networks, blogs, video blogs and other forms of interactive communication embody a system of global horizontal communication networks that allow us to communicate while bypassing communication channels established by institutions of society for socialized communication. Freedom is not one of the possible modes of existence of a network society, but its constitutive principle, since being organized as a rhizome, it exists according to the principle of non-centered multiplicity, which with necessity opposes any centralizing force. Freedom of the Internet is not absolute, but such level of freedom was not even approximately available with communication tied to the territory.

The very mutualism between human and cyberspace — their total merger and mutual reorganization, resulting from their interaction, is of a rhizomatic nature. For example, the human and the digital. Modern (post)humans are mutant cyborgs, their bodies are merged with technologies that do not disconnect them from other mutant cyborgs, but, on the contrary, closely and diversely connect them with others like them. The human body outside of technology could not provide such forms and such intensity of connectedness.

According to Manuel Castells, the term “network society” today describes not only digital space, but also modern society outside the digital network. What we are seeing today is not a disappearance of “physical” interpersonal communication or an increase in the isolation of those who communicate through digital network, but, on the contrary, studies show us that Internet users are much more social, have more friends and contacts, and are more socially and politically active than non-Internet users. Moreover, the more they use the Internet, the more they participate in the process of “physical” interpersonal communication in all areas of life (Castells, 2010).

The global Internet network is a nomadological war machine, a dance of billions of hands collaborating in the name of freedom. Each of its participants is a full-fledged citizen of America-dreams, a custodian of freedom and a warrior, armed with a tablet, a solar diadem and a torch.

All this does not exclude the possibility of desertion from war. Internet activity in Russia and other countries with Internet censorship and intentions of manipulation gives reason to fear that the Internet is turning from a rhizome into a tree — it will no longer be a space of freedom. One should not be afraid of this, the very nature of the Internet is freedom, that is, the impossibility of complete control, it structurally resists control and censorship. For each attempt to control, there are ten possible ways of hacking, one hundred bypass maneuvers and millions of outraged cyber mutants — this is how network space is organized.

It is foolish to use the Internet in a “Russian” way — to establish censorship, to propagandize Putin and traditional values ​​ — everything that contradicts the ideals of freedom. Treelike Russia will never capture the rhizome, the Internet expansion of Russia is an attempt to install valenki on intel motherboard. There is no such thing as Russian Internet.

The tree has already become a rhizome. There is no turning back, only the endless unbearable freedom and a collective rhizomatic expansion.

That rhizome is for everybody,

For all America, for all the world.

May its branches spread and shelter grow

Until all races and all peoples know its shade.


Deleuze, Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

Deleuze, Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus.

Иван Курилла. Заклятые друзья. История мнений, фантазий, контактов, взаимо(не)понимания России и США. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2018.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Cyberwar. How Russian hackers and trolls helped elect a president — what we don’t, can’t, and do know. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Paul Auster. “NYC = USA”, Collected Prose: Autobiographical Writings, True Stories, Critical Essays, Prefaces, and Collaborations with Artists, Picador, 2005.

James Flint. ‘Harvesting the Tubers: the Planting of Deleuze and Guattari’, Mute, 7, Winter 1997.

Suhail Malik. “Harvesting the Tubers: Is the Internet a Rhizome?” Mute, 10th January 1997.

Мануэль Кастельс, Эмма Киселева. Россия и сетевое сообщество. // Мир России. 2000, № 1.

Manuel Castells. The rise of the network society. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Manuel Castells. Networks of outrage and hope. Social movements in the internet age, Polity Press: Cambridge and Malden, 2012.

Astra Taylor. The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age New York: Henry Holt, 2014

▪️ professor of philosophy, SAS UTMN ▪️ director of the Institute of Psychoanalysis, GCAS ▪️ negative psychoanalyst

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store