The title of this essay makes a provocative claim:
Relation comes before relata.
But what does before mean?
It cannot mean simply earlier in time. There was not first a universe populated by relations without anything related, followed sometime later by the appearance of relata. Nor does relational metaphysics require us to imagine mysterious relations floating independently through an otherwise empty reality.
The claim is instead one of ontological priority.
To say that relation comes before relata is to say that relations belong to the conditions through which relata become what they are. Relata do not first achieve complete and self-sufficient existence and only afterward encounter other realities. Their identities, boundaries, histories, capacities, and possibilities emerge through relational conditions that participate in their constitution.
The preceding essays have prepared this conclusion.
They have argued that relation is constitutive, that relational reality continually becomes, that persistence is an achievement rather than a metaphysical guarantee, that coherent realities may acquire differentiated and embodied worldhood, and that such worlds participate consequentially within wider fields of becoming.
Those arguments need not be reconstructed here.
They leave us instead with a more difficult problem.
If relation possesses ontological priority, what becomes of the relata?
Do persons, organisms, ecosystems, stars, mountains, communities, and other enduring realities somehow become less real?
Does relational ontology dissolve concrete things into an abstract network?
Does the priority of relation require the disappearance of individuality?
Or does relation make genuine differentiation possible in the first place?
This essay proposes the latter.
The ontological priority of relation does not diminish the reality of relata. It explains their becoming.
And once relata become, their reality matters.
They possess organization, boundaries, histories, capacities, and consequences that cannot be ignored simply because their existence is relationally constituted.
The argument therefore turns upon two propositions that must be held together:
Relation is ontologically prior.
Relata are ontologically real.
Neither statement cancels the other.
Their correspondence defines the task before us.
Consider what would be required for something to exist as an absolutely independent relatum.
It would need to be what it is without reference to anything beyond itself.
Its identity could not depend upon a history it inherited. Its location could not depend upon a spatial field. Its persistence could not involve continuity through changing conditions. Its boundary could not distinguish an interior from an exterior, because even that distinction already establishes a relation between what belongs and what does not. Its activity could not affect anything else, nor could anything else affect it.
Such a reality would possess no environment.
No ancestry.
No context.
No exchange.
No comparison.
No participation.
Perhaps most importantly, it would be difficult to explain how it could be differentiated at all.
To identify something as this rather than that already involves distinction. Distinction establishes difference, and difference is relational. Something becomes identifiable because it occupies some determinate position, organization, history, or pattern relative to conditions other than itself.
This does not mean that difference is merely conceptual—that realities exist only because observers distinguish them.
The point is ontological rather than epistemological.
Realities themselves become differently organized.
A cell maintains a distinguishable organization through relations among membrane, metabolism, environment, genetic inheritance, chemical exchange, and internal regulation. An organism develops through biological inheritances and environmental interactions. An ecosystem exists through innumerable dependencies among organisms, material flows, climate, geography, and history. A star becomes through gravitational, thermodynamic, nuclear, and cosmological conditions that precede and exceed it.
In each case, the reality is genuine.
But its reality is not self-originating.
The relatum possesses a history.
And history is relational.
This suggests that the traditional image of independent entities subsequently entering into relations may reverse the actual order of explanation. What appears to us as an already constituted thing may instead represent the present achievement of a much longer relational history.
The relatum is what we encounter.
Relation helps explain how it became encounterable.
This distinction is important because ordinary experience naturally begins with things. We encounter trees, persons, buildings, animals, rivers, planets, institutions, and artifacts as recognizable realities. Their relative stability allows us to name them.
Ontology, however, need not stop where perception begins.
The fact that a mountain appears as a mountain does not imply that mountainhood is metaphysically primitive. Geological processes, material histories, tectonic activity, erosion, climate, gravity, and time all participate in the mountain's becoming.
Likewise, the apparent unity of an organism does not mean that organismic identity precedes the biological relationships through which it develops and persists.
The ontological question is therefore not:
Are relata real?
They plainly are.
The deeper question is:
Can relata account for their own reality independently of the relations through which they become?
Relational metaphysics answers no.
Whatever exists may possess genuine integrity, but integrity need not imply self-sufficiency.
Indeed, the preceding investigations suggest something almost opposite:
the more carefully we examine enduring realities, the more deeply their histories disclose relation.
Thus the problem with beginning metaphysics from independent relata is not that things are unreal.
It is that their apparent independence may conceal the relational conditions of their becoming.
Yet relational philosophy encounters an opposite danger.
If substance metaphysics risks granting too much independence to relata, relational metaphysics can risk granting too little.
The language of networks, fields, processes, systems, interdependence, and relation can become so expansive that concrete realities seem to disappear into the relationships surrounding them.
That would be a mistake.
Relation does not require dissolution.
If everything were absorbed into an undifferentiated relational whole, there would no longer be distinguishable participants capable of relating.
There would be relation without difference.
But relation itself presupposes differentiation.
For one reality to affect another, some distinction must obtain between them. For exchange to occur, there must be distinguishable organizations participating in the exchange. For boundaries to be crossed, boundaries must exist. For participation to become consequential, there must be participants possessing sufficient integrity to participate.
This means that a mature relational ontology must explain not only connectedness but individuation.
How does relational reality become many?
The preceding inquiry into stable worlds provides part of the answer.
Relational organization may achieve sufficient coherence to become embodied. Embodiment establishes effective presence. Boundaries differentiate an organized reality from its surroundings. Persistence allows that differentiation to continue through time.
None of these achievements removes the world from relation.
They give relation determinate form.
A boundary, therefore, is not evidence against relationality.
It is one of the ways relational organization becomes differentiated.
An organism's skin does not prove its independence from an environment. The skin makes a particular kind of environmental relationship possible. A cell membrane distinguishes an interior while regulating exchange with an exterior. A community may maintain identity through shared histories and practices while remaining deeply entangled with neighboring communities, economies, ecologies, and institutions.
Difference therefore need not mean separation.
And relation need not mean sameness.
We may express the balance this way:
Difference without isolation.
Relation without dissolution.
Belonging without absorption.
These are not merely ethical ideals.
They identify ontological requirements of relational multiplicity.
If relation could produce only sameness, reality would contain no genuine novelty of form.
If differentiation required absolute independence, relation could never be constitutive.
Instead, relational becoming appears capable of producing organized difference.
This gives us a stronger interpretation of the claim relation before relata.
It does not mean:
Relation is real; relata are derivative appearances.
It means:
Relation participates in the constitution of realities that become genuinely differentiated.
Once achieved, those differences are real.
A tree is not merely its ecological network.
A person is not merely the sum of social relationships.
An ecosystem is not merely a conceptual designation for interacting organisms.
A galaxy is not merely an abstraction imposed upon gravitational relations.
Each possesses an organization that has become consequentially distinct.
Relational ontology therefore requires a twofold affirmation:
No relatum is absolutely isolated.
And:
No relatum is merely reducible to its relations.
The first protects relational constitution.
The second protects achieved difference.
Together they allow us to understand reality neither as a collection of self-contained substances nor as an undifferentiated relational totality.
Reality becomes many through relation.
We can now ask more precisely what a relatum is.
Within the present metaphysical grammar, a relatum may be understood as:
a sufficiently coherent, differentiated, embodied, and persistent relational achievement capable of entering further relations as a consequential participant.
Each part of this definition matters.
A relatum is coherent because some organization distinguishes its pattern from surrounding possibilities.
It is differentiated because coherence establishes recognizable distinction.
It is embodied because its organization acquires effective presence rather than remaining an abstract possibility.
It is persistent insofar as sufficient continuity allows that organization to endure through changing conditions.
And it becomes participatory because its achieved organization can now affect and be affected by wider relational fields.
The importance of this account lies in its refusal to choose between relation and relata.
Relata are not metaphysical competitors with relation.
They are among relation's achievements.
Yet the word achievement must remain carefully qualified.
It does not imply intention.
It does not imply progress.
It does not imply that reality is striving toward the production of things.
Nor does every relation generate an enduring relatum.
Many relational configurations remain transient. Others fragment. Some never acquire sufficient coherence to persist. Still others persist for a time and eventually dissolve.
Achievement therefore refers simply to the contingent realization of a sufficiently stable relational organization.
Where such organization occurs, something new becomes possible:
the achievement itself can become a condition of further becoming.
This is the point at which the relationship between relation and relata becomes recursive.
Relations contribute to the constitution of relata.
But once constituted, relata enter into further relations.
Those relations are now affected by the capacities, boundaries, histories, and organizations of the relata participating within them.
Thus:
Relations condition relata.
Relata participate in relations.
Participation alters relational conditions.
Altered conditions contribute to further becoming.
There is no need to choose between relation and relatum because reality continually moves through both.
The relation becomes embodied.
The embodiment becomes consequential.
The consequential reality enters new relations.
Those relations create conditions from which further realities may emerge.
This recursive movement prevents relational ontology from becoming one-directional.
Relation is ontologically prior, but relational reality does not continually reset itself to an undifferentiated beginning.
It inherits its achievements.
A living organism inherits evolutionary histories already embodied in biological organization. A forest develops within ecological conditions produced partly by earlier organisms. Human beings enter linguistic and cultural worlds already shaped by generations of participation. Cities reorganize landscapes whose possibilities have been altered by geological, ecological, technological, economic, and historical processes.
What has become participates in what is becoming.
Relata therefore possess a curious metaphysical status.
They are dependent without being unreal.
They are differentiated without being isolated.
They are persistent without being immutable.
They are consequential without being self-grounding.
This may be one of the most important consequences of relational metaphysics.
Ontological dependence need not imply ontological inferiority.
To depend upon relation is not to possess less reality.
It is simply to exist relationally.
The claim that relation is ontologically primitive creates another danger that must be resisted.
Relation itself could become a new substance.
A philosophy may reject one metaphysical absolute only to install another in its place. If every question is answered merely by saying “everything is relational,” then relation ceases to illuminate reality and becomes a universal abstraction imposed upon it.
Relational priority must therefore be distinguished from relational reductionism.
To say that relation is ontologically prior does not mean that relation alone provides a sufficient explanation of everything that exists.
Once relational organization achieves differentiated form, new properties, capacities, constraints, and possibilities may arise at the level of the achieved reality.
The organization matters.
The boundary matters.
The history matters.
The embodiment matters.
The scale matters.
The environment matters.
The particular relations matter.
A living organism cannot be adequately explained merely by declaring it relational. We must investigate the particular biological organization through which its life is sustained. An ecosystem requires attention to species, climate, geography, energy flows, histories, and disturbances. A conscious person cannot be explained simply by invoking relation; the embodied organization through which consciousness becomes possible must itself be investigated.
Relation provides an ontological starting point.
It does not eliminate the need for further explanation.
This is why priority is not reduction.
The ontological primitive establishes the most basic condition of reality without exhausting the reality that develops from it.
Indeed, relational becoming appears generative precisely because achieved organizations can possess capacities not adequately described by simply listing their constituent relations separately.
A world becomes more than an inventory of connections.
It becomes an organized participant.
This insight also prevents us from confusing metaphysics with science.
Metaphysics may propose that relational constitution, differentiation, embodiment, persistence, and participation belong to the general grammar through which realities become.
But it remains the task of particular sciences to determine how specific realities actually operate.
Physics investigates physical organization.
Biology investigates living organization.
Ecology investigates relationships among organisms and environments.
Neuroscience investigates nervous systems.
Social sciences investigate human institutions and collective organization.
Relational metaphysics should not prescribe their findings in advance.
Its more modest task is to ask what kind of reality makes such differentiated forms possible.
The answer proposed here is not a universe in which every level is reducible to one privileged kind of thing.
Nor is it a universe in which every difference becomes ontologically independent.
It is a universe in which relationally constituted realities can acquire sufficient organization to become consequential in their own right.
This produces a useful philosophical distinction:
Constitutive dependence does not entail explanatory exhaustion.
A reality may depend upon relations for its becoming while requiring investigation at the level of the organization it has achieved.
The consequence is a relational metaphysics capable of respecting emergence without mystifying it and respecting reduction without absolutizing it.
Explanation may move toward constitutive relations.
It may also move toward achieved organizations.
Neither direction alone is sufficient.
This is especially important for the philosophical architecture still ahead.
If every subsequent subject—time, life, consciousness, meaning, ethics, civilization—were explained simply by repeating that “everything is relational,” then relational metaphysics would become empty precisely through overuse.
The work ahead must instead ask what distinctive forms relational organization actually assumes.
Relation establishes the beginning.
It does not dictate every conclusion.
We can now return to the question that has accompanied this essay from the beginning:
How does relational reality become many?
The answer is not that an original unity somehow fractures into multiplicity.
Nor is it that independently existing multiplicities later discover one another.
The proposal is subtler.
Relation generates conditions for differentiation.
Through relational becoming, some configurations acquire coherence.
Through coherence, some acquire embodiment.
Through embodiment, boundaries and integrity become possible.
Through persistence, differentiated realities acquire histories.
Through participation, those histories become consequential within wider relational fields.
The many therefore emerge neither outside relation nor in opposition to it.
They emerge within relational becoming.
Multiplicity is not the failure of relation.
It is one of relation's achievements.
This gives relational metaphysics a very different picture of reality.
A forest contains trees, fungi, animals, soils, waters, microorganisms, atmospheric processes, and countless other realities. None is simply reducible to the forest. Yet none exists wholly independently of wider ecological relations.
Likewise, a human community contains persons who remain genuinely distinct. Their participation does not erase individuality. Indeed, meaningful participation requires it.
Difference makes relation possible.
Relation makes forms of difference possible.
The two continually develop together.
We might therefore replace two inadequate metaphysical pictures:
First relata, then relation.
and:
First relation, then the disappearance of relata.
with a recursive grammar:
Relation → Differentiation → Relata → Participation → Altered Relations → Further Differentiation
Even this should not be interpreted as a rigid sequence.
It is better understood as a recurring pattern.
Relational fields contribute to differentiated realities.
Differentiated realities participate within relational fields.
Their participation changes those fields.
Changed fields alter the conditions of subsequent differentiation.
Reality thereby acquires history.
And because the participants are genuinely differentiated, the future is not merely the repetition of what preceded it.
Different organizations possess different capacities.
Different histories create different possibilities.
Different relations generate different consequences.
The world becomes plural not despite relation but through it.
This provides an important safeguard for the larger philosophical project.
A relational metaphysics should never use relation to flatten the world's differences.
Galaxies are not ecosystems.
Ecosystems are not organisms.
Organisms are not persons.
Persons are not civilizations.
The fact that all may be relationally constituted does not make their organizations, capacities, or histories interchangeable.
Common relationality does not imply ontological uniformity.
Indeed, the opposite may be true.
Because relational becoming occurs under different conditions, across different histories, organizations, scales, and environments, relational reality may generate extraordinary diversity.
Generativity therefore appears here in an important preliminary sense.
Relation does not merely connect what already exists.
Relational organization can contribute to the emergence of realities capable of doing things that their prior conditions could not accomplish in the same way.
Those realities then become participants in subsequent becoming.
The many become conditions for still further many.
This is why relational reality is not merely interconnected.
It is generative.
And yet we should stop here.
The larger architecture implied by this generativity belongs to the inquiry that follows.
For the present essay, the conclusion is sufficient:
Relation before relata does not mean relation without relata.
It means relation gives rise to realities capable of becoming genuinely different from one another while never becoming absolutely separate from the relational conditions of their existence.
The ontological priority of relation therefore culminates not in sameness.
It culminates in the possibility of real difference.
This essay began by asking what before means in the claim:
Relation comes before relata.
The answer has required careful qualification.
Before does not mean temporally earlier.
It does not mean that relations exist independently of everything related.
It does not mean that relata are illusions.
And it does not mean that individuality should be dissolved into an undifferentiated relational whole.
The claim concerns ontological priority.
Relata do not begin as fully constituted, self-sufficient realities and subsequently enter into relation. They emerge through relational histories that contribute to their organization, differentiation, embodiment, persistence, and possibilities.
Yet emergence changes what is possible.
Once relational realities acquire sufficient coherence and integrity, they become consequential realities in their own right.
They participate.
Their boundaries matter.
Their histories matter.
Their capacities matter.
Their differences matter.
They alter the relations within which subsequent becoming occurs.
Thus relational metaphysics must hold two propositions together:
Relation is ontologically prior.
Relata are ontologically real.
The first prevents us from mistaking achieved realities for self-grounding substances.
The second prevents us from dissolving achieved realities back into an abstraction called relation.
Together they describe a reality in which dependence and difference coexist.
This also clarifies why relational priority cannot become relational reductionism.
Relation is the beginning of explanation, not the end of inquiry.
The particular forms through which relational reality becomes embodied must be investigated on their own terms.
An organism is relational, but its biology matters.
An ecosystem is relational, but its ecological organization matters.
A person is relational, but personhood cannot be exhausted by the statement that persons relate.
A civilization is relational, but its histories, institutions, practices, technologies, and environments remain consequential.
Reality becomes increasingly particular precisely through its relational achievements.
The ontological reversal can therefore be stated without diminishing the world of things:
Relations condition relata.
Relata become differentiated participants.
Participants alter relations.
Altered relations condition further becoming.
This is not a closed circle.
It is an open recursion.
Each achievement enters a reality already underway and may contribute something consequential to what follows.
Relation therefore does not stand opposed to multiplicity.
Relation makes multiplicity possible.
Nor does relational becoming move toward an undifferentiated whole.
It continually gives rise to differences capable of entering new relations while retaining their achieved integrity.
Thus we arrive at the deeper meaning of the essay's title.
Relation before relata does not mean relation instead of relata.
It means that what becomes genuinely itself does so through a reality it never possesses entirely by itself.
And perhaps the relational ontology developed throughout these essays can now be stated with unusual simplicity:
Difference without isolation.
Relation without dissolution.
Multiplicity without metaphysical separation.
Reality relates.
Through relation, realities become.
And what becomes may become sufficiently different to participate in the becoming of something else.
That is how relation gives rise to the many.
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by Joe Sachs. Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press, 1999.
Aristotle. Physics. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947–48.
Hartshorne, Charles. Reality as Social Process: Studies in Metaphysics and Religion. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1953.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1967.
———. Modes of Thought. New York: Free Press, 1968.
———. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
———. Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1967.
Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007.
DeLanda, Manuel. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum, 2006.
Esfeld, Michael. “Quantum Entanglement and a Metaphysics of Relations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35, no. 4 (2004): 601–617.
French, Steven. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Ladyman, James. “What Is Structural Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29, no. 3 (1998): 409–424.
Ladyman, James, and Don Ross, with David Spurrett and John Collier. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Juarrero, Alicia. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Kauffman, Stuart A. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
Simondon, Gilbert. Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information. Translated by Taylor Adkins. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2020.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1980.
Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.
Morin, Edgar. On Complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2008.
Rosen, Robert. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Craig, Edward, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman.
Slater, R. E.
———. Reality & Cosmology Series: Embodied Relational Reality.
———. Reality & Metaphysics Series: Open and Relational Process Metaphysics of Becoming.
———. The Primacy of Relation. Metaphysics XVII.
———. Reality as Open Relational Becoming. Metaphysics XVIII.
———. The Metaphysics of Overcoming. Metaphysics XIX.
———. Stable Worlds Within Relational Becoming. Metaphysics XX.
———. The Metaphysics of Participation. Metaphysics XXI.
