Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Economics arrow Knowledge-creating Milieus in Europe
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

5 Rhizomatic Passages

The present text has marked a rhizomatic strand that included several passages. From the various passages performed earlier, we choose three to consolidate here. The first one, and arguably the most important, is the passage from individual to collective. From milieu to territory to atmosphere, it is clear that knowledgecreation and creativity can only take place in spaces of collective articulation, namely organisation and expression. Right for the outset we dismissed the idea of a body as separate from its environment. Further, we saw how even a body's environment, that is the external milieu (itself part of the multiplicity of a milieu), is implicated in other milieu-formations of other bodies. Translated to an urban milieu, this means that the spatial affinity of collective knowledge-creating enterprises is a necessity without which individual bodies perish.

The second passage that we showed is the passage from conscious to preconscious, or even better to non-conscious. While conscience (in the sense of creative spirit, strategy, awareness etc.) is often hailed as central in knowledge-creating and creativity processes, a rhizomatic approach shows that conscience does violence to the affective movement within and between bodies, thus managing entirely to circumvent atmospheric considerations. This is particularly problematic for the new creative economy that relies on modern, rather than atmospheric, structures of hierarchy, origin and boundary creation, and which, consequently fails to move rhizomatically in the new territory.

Finally, the third passage is the one between space and space. The terms operate in several ways: from space as container to space as integral factor of knowledgecreation; from space as diffused globalised presence to space as concrete spatiality of knowledge deposition; and from space as important factor to space as fetish. The last one deserves a brief explanation. The way space has been dealt with here is obviously as a prime factor in all three configurations, namely milieu, territory and atmosphere. At the same time, however, we tried to avoid what often happens in the ambits of the fairly recent 'spatial turn' in humanities and social sciences, namely a fetishisation of spatiality in exclusion of other factors. Although not possible to expand on this here, it should suffice to say that space is seen as an enabler of new materialities, very much along the lines of atmospheric affects and body excess, with which new materialities space operates in conjunction rather than in opposition.

All three passages share the one characteristic of flirting with chaos. None of them is conclusive, authoritative or indeed safe. All of them allow a small amount of organisation to remain within the territory, while allowing chaos to ebb and flow on the territory's edge. Considering though that any territory is a rhizome, the above can only mean that the edge might well be located in the centre of it all, in the heart of the territory that we have called knowledge-creating space: indeed, in the middle of it all. The question, and perhaps the most important passage of all, remains the one between chaos (at the beginning, which is not a beginning) and chaos (at the end, which concludes nothing), with a bit or organisation in between to protect us from chaos.

 
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Philosophy
Political science
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel