Rhizo~mapping
thinking about children’s curricular performance As well as being a site of conflict, their maps become a catalyst for resolution. A developmental, behaviourist reading would likely see this as extremely well executed conflict resolution and in these terms, Zak’s expertise is undeniable. But a Deleuzo-Guattarian reading intensifies the (mis)understanding of the milieu, presenting both Tim and Zak as ‘expert’ at negotiating difficult territory, of dissolving the problem. This is a moment of plugging tracings back into the(ir) map – ‘Plug the tracings back into the map, connect the roots or trees back up with a rhizome’ (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.14). In affirming each other’s engagement with the game, Tim and Zak pause to (re)make their hunting maps. But, the tracing – of the intended storyline – limits the game; it seems they had different maps and intentions from the outset, but it is not until Tim approaches Zak at the drawing table that these become apparent and an opportunity to re/dis/solve their differing expectations opens. The tracing – the (fixed) understanding that each has – is impeding the game’s processing and the (open) mapping enterprise. The tracing obstructs the game; an asignifying rupture appears; and a new line of flight emerges – ‘Once a rhizome has been obstructed, arborified, it’s all over, no desire stirs; for it’s always by rhizome that desire moves and produces’ (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.14). While (re)making the maps stymied the game temporarily, in following a new line of flight, an acceptable variation emerged for continuing by bringing the tracing of the hunt and two maps of possibilities for enacting the hunt together. There are knots of arborescence in rhizomes, and rhizomatic offshoots in roots…The important point is that the root-tree and canal-rhizome are not two opposed models: the first operates as a transcendent model and tracing, even if it engenders its own escapes; the second operates as an immanent process that overturns the model and outlines a map, even if it constitutes its own hierarchies…It is not a question of…this or that category of thought. It is a question of a model that is perpetually in construction or collapsing, and of a process that is perpetually prolonging itself, breaking off and starting up again. (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 20) In breaking off and starting again, Tim and Zak play out their (mis)understanding. Tim’s tracing engenders its own (despotic) escape as he states that he wants and needs to go on a spider hunt; Zak’s idea for a dinosaur-spider hunt opens out an immanent process that becomes a new mapping for the game. His way through is not despotic, even though the new combined reading of their maps – for a dinosaur-spider hunt – rises above the old map’s tracing. But, as the tracing is plugged into the map, the tracing melds with the map to enhance the game, this assuring their passaging through/with/in it. Mapping the game both is and is not disrupted; they each become a knot of arborescence, blocking the other’s desiring a rhizomatic offshoot. In behaviourist terms, this interruption disrupts the smooth flow of the game, but negotiating Deleuzo-Guattarian smooth 90