Deleuze is a real French philosopher. Dark sentences, difficult, using self-made words and giving common phrases new meanings. And, surprise, he does not write about education.
Nietzsche is an important source for his ideas, the rhizome idea stems from the “Labyrinth” of Nietzsche. In D.’s book on Kafka D. uses the rhizome word first time. He writes: the work of Kafka is a rhizome, a hole (as of a rabbit) a system of underground holes without centre, without a distinct entrance.
The rhizome is a phrase D. uses to write about philosophy of science, he does not use the word to describe a network or a learning network. Deleuze is writing about knowledge and how knowledge comes into being in a philosophical way, he does not try to describe learning.
[I read “Rizoom” Dutch translation of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s book ‘Rhizome, introduction’ and “Deleuze Compendium, red. Ed Romein, Marc Schuilenburg and Sjoerd van Tuinen]
Dave Cornier is using (and he is of course allowed to do this) the rhizome concept as a metaphor to describe learning. I have a feeling Dave does use the tool “rhizome” in his own way which is a bit different from Deleuzes concept. (Deleuze explicitly allows his readers to do so).
Reading parts of these books did make me think again about my ideas about the philosophy of science. My philosophical heroes are not Nietzsche and Bergson nor these French philosophers. I choose the side of Alan Sokal, Chalmers etc.
In my struggle to understand the importance of the rhizome concept I got help from Dave Cormier (on Twitter) he send me the link to his chapter in a book on education and rhizomes. Very clear about rhizomes in education.