Rhizome & Central Place Theory

Unplanning has an excellent post that re-introduces Walther Christaller’s venerable Central Place Theory and discusses it continuing role in a low-energy world. The theory, and Unplanner’s post, call into question the validity of a rhizome-lattice structure (as I suggested in “Envisioning a Hamlet Economy.” See Unplanner’s comments HERE.) because such a lattice structure rejects “super-nodes,” and attempts to keep the economic topology essentially “flat.” This post hopes to cover 1) a discussion of the key role of subsidy in the Central Place model, 2) the unique adaptation of a rhizome-lattice by consciously holding the threshold of self-sufficiency at a low level, 3) the resulting ability of a rhizome-lattice to persist despite the necessary artificiality of its construction upon the detritus of a hierarchal system molded by subsidized central-place infrastructure, and 4) my own vision of the new role of a Dynamic Central Place Interaction that allows a rhizome-lattice to leverage the potential of Central Place without facilitating the accretion of hierarchy.

1. Hierarchal Subsidy is the key to Central Place Structure

As I noted in my paper, “Subsidized Centralization: An Economic Analysis of the Roman Road Network” (Presented at the Mediterranean Studies Association Annual Meeting. Currently under peer-review for publication by the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Previously “All Roads Lead to Rome,” and again available on this site with all graphics working properly!), Central Place Structure is the result of subsidy by a hierarchal regime to the transportation and communication infrastructure (or, energy requirements) of a system. The pattern noted in Central Place Theory arises from hierarchy creating sufficient subsidy to centralization to overcome the natural tendency towards devolution and import replacement. This is necessary because, absent subsidy, hierarchy is a naturally inefficient means of information processing (see A Theory of Power, Chapter 9). Consider the graphics below (from “Subsidized Centralization”):

Absent subsidy to maintain hierarchy, a devolved pattern (such as the rhizome-lattice model) is sustainable. Hierarchy, however, once initiated, exerts a powerful pull: it offers redistributive security to localized economic nodes that have failed to maintain economic self-sufficiency. Additionally, it provides one method for providing the complex organization needed to respond to certain systemic shocks such as invasion, drought, disease, and the ability to produce and trade in goods and services that require complexity. Rhizome, however, offers an alternative mode of organization that can address both of these problems.

2. Rhizome: Conscious Threshold of Self-Sufficiency

Standard, localized economic nodes remain dependent on participation in an exchange network to meet their minimum needs. This dependency provides the initial subsidy to hierarchy that gets its evolution ‘over the hump’ presented by the tendency towards devolution and import-replacement, and facilitates its perpetual intensification—as we see repeated over and over in the annals of history. Rhizome addresses this at its source: a rhizome node must, by definition, maintain a resilient minimal self-sufficiency. It is then free to engage in specialized production with surpluses, but by maintaining minimal self-sufficiency, it never becomes dependent on interaction with other nodes, and therefore never falls victim to hierarchy. It always holds a position of power in outside interaction: it does not need to participate. It consciously holds the threshold of self-sufficiency at its own level.

3. Rhizome Compatibility with Central Place Remnants

Because rhizome consciously holds self-sufficiency at its own level, even if this may not seem like the most efficient strategy in the short term, it can co-exist with remnants of a hierarchal, central place structure. Consider the following graphic depicting a modern, hierarchal and Central Place dominated topology:

Now consider the conscious development of rhizome within this Central Place dominated context, made possible by the conscious choice by rhizome nodes to maintain localized self-sufficiency and to build a rhizome-lattice structure:

By working within the hierarchal system, but consciously developing a network that lies outside of that system, the rhizome structure in the above graphic is becoming increasingly resilient. This is, in many ways, similar to the conscious creation of alternative social networks via the internet that, while compatible with the traditional social structure, are outside of it and in many ways are replacing it.

4. Dynamic Central Place Interaction

The second advantage afforded by Central Place hierarchies is the ability to mobilize and effectively coordinate larger groups to respond to crises and to engage in highly complex economic production and exchange. Rhizome networks address this need through the use of dynamic “Central Place” interaction—fairs, festivals, traveling markets, conferences, etc. Essentially, the central place concept is utilized, but it is decoupled from a fixed spatial arrangement: the center is constantly moving, as is the nature of the edge. Because established central places cannot calcify and accrete into hierarchy, the rhizome-lattice is able to leverage the advantages of centralization without destroying itself. Again, the dynamic nature of this “nomadic center” must be the result of conscious implementation by the lattice.