deleuze and guattari's theory focused on how structures of control (especially thought) are formed and how they thus become totalities. They then look for other examples of how 'things' work across the boundaries of those totalities thus opening them, for however short a time, up to an exterior, to something else. crass examples off the top of my head :

  • 1) the cold war as an east-west [consolidated] structure that is traversed by north south tangents of terrorism
  • 2) warfare; there is a contrast between the invasion of other countries by armies such as napoleon's which set up a static line of supply because their objective is to extend the boundaries of the state. This is contrasted with the nomadic warfare utilised by the khan dynasties which as such had no demarcated territory. [ignoring the attempt of the last khan to establish a city [roots] in china.
  • 3) the most famous (and misunderstood, especially in the 'internet is like a rhizome' perspective) example is that of the rhizome versus the tree. the tree as a model of thought, say d+g, cannot encapsulate thought as it only supports a greek model of thought - from one source point outwards in a structure that always points back to the root. - the rhizome [tuber] on the other hand, bifurcates in a non-centralised fashion that disconnects and reconnects with itself and other systems in a non-hierarchical way (they say). thart is to say thetree always has a centre but the rhizome is acentred.

these types of contrasts are d+g's attempts to work outside of a dualistic thought insofar as in the rhizome example, many 'radical' structures are shown to be a part of the root system that cuts itself off from the main body of the tree [the avant garde is an example of this], and appears to be 'different' to the root structure. However, these systems whilst appearing to be de-centralised in one area generally re-affirm the root structure in another.

another way of looking at it is that d+g utilise geography in a similar way to theorists using history - the 'mobilistic', as bard+soderqvist put it, is a, somewhat fuzzy, way of saying 'multiplicity':

".we will not look for anything to understand in it. We will ask what it functions with, in connection with what other things it does or does not transmit intensities, in which other multiplicities its own are inserted and metamorphosed, and with what bodies without organs it makes its own converge." A Thousand Plateaus, p4