Rhizomatic and Repetitive–Odell and Communities

When we talk about community, there is an inherent tension between those who happen to be around you and those you have actively sought out. How do we understand community in our own lives–something that develops physically around us, or something we have to seek out and insert ourselves into? Jenny Odell, in her work in How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy, provides us with a framework for community that I want to explore and push against. She states that they need to be “local, flexible, and rhizomatic” (133). I want to understand each of these words in context, as well as the type of community Odell wants us to participate in or understand. 

“Local” is related to prioritizing the world around you, and what is immediately available to you. Odell emphasizes this through her prioritization of what she calls “the local and the present,” providing analysis of San Francisco’s rose garden and its primary place in her own understanding of community (Introduction, xiii). “Flexible” implies that these communities need to be able to work around each other as individuals, that all members as people also deserve respect and understanding of their own limits. “Rhizomatic” is a word that is intended to refer to gene structures, but in rhetorical studies, is used to refer to a type of accreditation that cannot be attributed to any one person. Rather, it is rhetorical work that is not only being done by the community, but is attributed to the community  rather than any individual.

What I want to ponder is how we decide what is rhizomatic, and what communities have earned this label, in addition to ideas of local or flexible. We do not always choose what is local to us–I know many academics can feel this way. As Odell also explores, our workplaces are often where we end up the majority of our time–in many ways they are local to us, with us traveling somewhere else or attending virtually, our workplaces in our home. Odell also analyzes this as representative of the workhouse culture of many industries, describing the experience overall as “faster and faster” and citing the existence of “thirty-hour shifts” (Anatomy of a Refusal, 77, 78). When you are spending more than a day at work, it could be argued that this place is local to you. There are examples of this in the work-live-shop centers popping up in major cities, particularly New York City’s Hudson Yard, considered to be a tourist attraction and an Instagrammable centerpiece (Levenson). This type of environment could be viewed as the ultimate “local” experience–you can work, shop, and live all at once. However, due to the accessibility of this experience to a true “public” and its closed-off nature, it has taken on an eerie reputation and has been the site of several suicides. 

We can also see this type of site in actual company campuses, with Facebook and Google providing lavish amenities (Himmel). The idea of locality without context is not enough. As much as Odell would reject the idea of these sites, others might see them as radical expressions of a new way to live, something that fits in with our current era. 

In terms of “flexibility,” we could also consider different workplace communities to be flexible in their offering remote options in the first place. There is analysis in How to Do Nothing of the ways that work is expanding, and how it is impossible to escape it in our everyday lives. Specifically, Odell mentions the ads from NEC and Fiverr, NEC’S from 1980 titled “Power Lunch,” in which a man sat on a computer at home next to an untouched sandwich, and Fiverr’s from 2017 in which a figure stared blankly into the camera next to text that read “You eat a coffee for lunch. You follow through on your follow-through. Sleep-deprivation is your drug of choice. You might be a doer” (The Case for Nothing, 16). Odell expresses frustration at looking at NEC’s ad that it did, in fact, get so much easier to work, that we did become so flexible not in the service of others, but of any given career or corporation. She refers to it as a “constant connection,” in which we are physically unable to leave work, we cannot walk away (The Case for Nothing, 18). Once again, the flexibility that is offered by remote work is the kind of flexibility Odell would say is not “real,” that it doesn’t actually offer us any humanity. However, again, they are technically considered to be examples of “flexibility” in our world now. In the context of these kinds of communities and these kinds of flexibility, people may be encouraged to interact more with themselves than with others, or to exist purely in a closed context. 

Where we can explore these concepts from the perspective that Odell intends is when we include the idea of the “rhizomatic” and prioritize this. The concept of not giving “credit” in the way it is traditionally thought of is only helpful when you want to honor all’s contributions, and respect collaboration as an ongoing process. I can see this as another concept that those who want to use concepts from pop-philosophy in their workplaces can co-opt or use for their own purposes, to increase productivity uncritically. We can potentially understand this more through work in fandom studies as they represent these rhizomatic networks. 

Candace Epps-Robertson in her work on fandom studies focusing on BTS’s fandom, also known as the “Army,” analyzes the power of these rhizomatic networks and where they can be effective (A Personal Perspective 1.5, Wright) The point here is that the communication has emerged around a shared interest. According to her, the work in this fandom is influenced by what they are specifically communicating about–KPOP band BTS–as they are transnational and come from a type of music often associated with crossing cultural boundaries–and can work beyond what is thought of as simply “fandom” interests. These networks also relate specifically to the fact that they are communal and have communal interests. Although they may be prioritizing different things within their own lives, the presence of fandom as a unifying force can make them want to help others or help other causes. The interest is what creates the ability to work with each other, rather than an artificial idea or form of workplace. Although they are not local to each other, this group of people have created a type of locality and flexibility in what they write about and what they prioritize.  

The understanding of community that Odell has, although partially correct and helpful, cannot be the entire story. Some of the best community happens when people are focused on a shared cause, not a shared idea. 

Works Cited 

Himmel, Sheia. “Campus Life at Facebook and Google.” IEEE Spectrum, 31 May 2011. https://spectrum.ieee.org/campus-life-at-facebook-and-google. Accessed Nov 17 2023. 

Levenson, Eric. “After latest suicide, the Vessel in New York City’s Hudson Yard ponders its future.” CNN, 7 August 2021. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/us/vessel-hudson-yards-suicide-wellness/index.html. Accessed Nov 17 2023. 

Odell, Jenny. How to Do Nothing. Melville House Printing, 2019. 

Wright, Marri. “The Rhizomatic Revolution Review: A Personal Perspective 1.5” Rhizomatic Revolution Review, https://ther3journal.com/r3-blog/a-personal-perspective-1-5/. Accessed Nov 17 2023.