The social dimension is crucial, and forms a background to both Bakhtin and Bernstein (and Halliday –OK to all 3. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition). I think the term ‘cultural capital’ sums it up well enough — people acquire dispositions or ‘tastes’ and this unconscious material facilitates some social relations rather than others. I think occupation can be important as well as social class/status — I thought the key participants were mostly fairly marginalised educational developers/educational technologists, with some unattached educational radicals, so they had problems and controversies that were not always explicit but which structured their interventions.
Finally, not every them wants to become a we. I myself cherish my autonomy and independence and am delighted to be without paid occupation (retired). After years of having to compromise with purveyors of certainties of various kinds, I tend to agree with Sartre that ‘[academic] hell is other people’. Deleuze himself was a notorious loner in academic terms , of course.
Best wishes for any future rhizos. As you know, my preference would be for more solid Deleuzian theorising ( see my account of Rhizo 15: http://www.arasite.org/rhizomenup.html)