I have long been interested in what counts as doing rhizomatics.
I am well aware that there are versions best described as pop
Philosophy, material that is light in analysis
Of the actual works of Deleuze
That sees all humanist philosophical concepts as equals,
And doesn’t even pick up on the political radicalism of Guattari!

Of the two, I actually admire more Guattari;
There is still a cutting edge to his rhizomatics.
I think he is responsible for the bit where rhizomatics equals
‘Stratography’ or ‘micropolitics’, not pop
Stuff of the kind discussed by Deleuze,
The philosophical equivalent of ‘dad dancing’, not critical, not analysis.

Not that Deleuze is incapable of analysis.
He seems to have gone ‘pop’ only in the first books with Guattari.
I am not blaming Felix: the fault lies with Deleuze,
And the French bourgeois who latched on to terms like rhizomatics.
It all seemed to mix in – philosophy and sentimental pop.
The myth of modern culture is that all forms are equals.

Deleuze’s early books, says Foucault, are without equals;
He freed up thought with his ontological analysis.
But formidably difficult, far from pop.
Deleuze, in increasing isolation, turned to Guattari;
Somehow, from their delirious ramblings emerged – rhizomatics.
Badiou says the search for fame was the downfall of Deleuze.

Now, Thousand Plateaus is what is best known of Deleuze,
The two of them are clearly seen as simple equals,
The assemblage of hetereogeneity has gone, and rhizomatics
Is collaboration, so personal it resists analysis.
Let’s hear it one last time for F. Guattari;
A man who knew his music wasn’t pop

Derby and Joan, Mom and pop,
Old Felix Guattari and cool Gilles Deleuze.
Not conceptual personae, concepts named Guattari
And Deleuze, not ’friends of philosophy’,just the equals
Of so many more doing shallow analysis,
Poets, fellow-feeling, fun as rhizomatics.

Simon and Garfunkel are their pop equals.
Poor ontology, farewell Deleuze analysis!
Poor politics, farewell Guattari rhizomatics!