How far does rhizomatic learning reflect reality, especially in learning or social networks?
Dave response post provides more grounding on what rhizomatic learning is “What the rhizome metaphor is meant to impart is that the learning process is rhizomatic, it moves, shift, sprouts at different times and places (and different for different people). ” Here Jenny and George raised questions on such modes of learning.
The purpose of the rhizome is to support the shoots, leaves, flowers and fruit. (Not sure if purpose is the right word, but it does raise the whole issue of purpose in learning networks which I might come back to another time.) The rhizome cannot exist without shoots, leaves, flowers and fruit, and they cannot exist without the rhizome.
I think rhizome refers to the connections between those chains, power and circumstances, as detailed here. So as rhizome has no beginning or end, it is not the sort of “one thing” that has a prescribed chronology and organisation, rather, it favours normadic system of growth and propagation. This conceptualizes that the members of the “tribe” (based on rhizome) would roam from one place to another in search of information (or knowledge).
However, when rhizomes are considered in contrast with networks, I find the rhizome model begins to lose some appeal. The greatest weakness I see with the rhizome model is that rhizomes do nothing new. They only make more of what already exists. And they can only make more of themselves. This is the opposite of diversity – it is extreme monoversity (it’s not a word, I checked, but it works for me). While rhizomes are diverse in shape and structure – growing, adapting, sprouting, replicating – they are not diverse in substance – i.e. rhizomes do not morph into new organic entities.
Are rhizomes diverse in substance? I think rhizomes could be one way to describe the “organic learning” as in gardening, where roots, shoots, and branches all inter-mingle in a complex way. I would argue, it may be a useful concept to understand why the multiplicity of such rhizomes is important, as it defies certain structures which would limit its growth. As Dave mentioned in the video in the Coolcast below, if you break the rhizome into two, and put them into different gardens, then they would grow, adapt, sprout and replicate in their own gardens.
George continues: “I don’t see networks as a metaphor for learning and knowledge. I see learning and knowledge as networks. In global, digital, distributed, and complex settings, a networked model of learning and knowledge is critical.”
I see networks as a metaphor for learning and knowledge, and learning and knowledge as networks. Why? networks could be a representational pattern where knowledge be recognised, as shared here and here. See this amazing video referred by George. What sort of patterns (knowledge) are revealed here, the concept of emergence.
In this Community as Curriculum by Dave, he provides a unique view on how community could be used as a Curriculum, where people could share and learn together. He distinguishes between two different types of community.
Here is the Coolcast that Jeff, Dave and I were sharing.
I would have liked to expand my thinking about rhizomatic learning, but at this stage, I would leave it to you to share your views further.
I reckon an understanding of fact in rhizomatic learning is fundamental. “Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent’s claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means “truth,” and theory means “speculation.” as mentioned in wikipedia. So theory and factual could be differently interpreted by people.