RELATIONAL ARCHITECTURE
Process opened the inquiry.Relation deepened it.Relational reality reframed it.Relational philosophy generalized it.Relational theology will eventually interpret it.
It began by asking the question, "What is reality?"
That question gradually led ontologically through process, becoming, relation, emergence, embodiment, persistence, worldhood, participation, agency, and responsibility. This nomenclature described what became Embodied Process Reality (EPR).
Along the way, the inquiry itself changed. It began with the influence of process philosophy but increasingly became an investigation into something even more fundamental than process itself. Eventually it was realized that "relation" was the ontological primitive not process. That relation was how reality became what it was... differentiated, coherent, embodied, persistent, and consequential.
At this relization EPR became ERR - Embodied Relational Reality. The historic genealogy of this development was along this sequence of events:
Initial Inquiry → led to Process → led to Relational Process → led to Relation → led to Relational Reality → led to Relational Philosophy
But, this sequence should not be understood as a series of discarded positions. Process was never abandoned when relation became more important. Process philosophy had opened the possibility of understanding reality as relation, and relationally becoming, rather than as static (non-relational) being. Once relational becoming was taken seriously, another question next emerged:
What makes relational becoming possible?
Relational becoming is always becoming with, among, through, within, and in response to other relationships. Relation increasingly appeared not as an additional property possessed by an otherwise independency of things, but as something constitutive of the realities that become. Instead of the classical/contemporary sciences saying relata leads to relation our inquiry into reality had turned the phrase around stating relation before relata - thus birthing relational reality.
It was at this point the essay discussions turned away from its initial process philosophical framework towards a relational philosophical framework - while retaining process as the dynamism of relational becoming. Essentially, we took a step back from process to relation.
By necessity it was noticed that:
1 - Processual-EPR was doing too much work and need to be simplified by moving its ontological substance into relational-ERR.
2 - Subsequently, ORPMOB (Open and Relational Process Metaphysics of Becoming) also required revisement-and-infusion with a relational grammar as primary (while moving its processual grammar to a secondary mode).
3 - And finally, the older EPR ontology was released from its accumulating synthetic mode when creating GRR (Generative Relational Realism) to capture the architecture of relational realism that joined ERR (relational ontology) + ORPMOB (relational metaphysics) together.
EPR was left unchanged from essays 1-56, but revised in essays 57-61.ORPMOB was left unchanged from essays 1-15, but revised across essays 16-24.GRR was added and explain across essays 25-34.
Further, having realized relational reality needed an architecture GRR was derived to carry three broad commitments:
1 - Reality is real: it does not depend upon our descriptions in order to exist.
2 - Reality is relational: what exists does not first arise as wholly self-sufficient substance and only afterward enter into relation.
3 - Reality is generative: what becomes can become consequential to what becomes next.
And because GRR was a philosophy of realism it became necessary to ask whether it was original - and how it might compare with similar systems. Which will be the remainder of the discussion here..
How much of this has already been said?
That question is especially important because nearly every major idea within GRR belongs to a much older and wider philosophical conversation.
Relation has histories.
Process has histories.
Emergence has histories.
Realism has histories.
Systems, embodiment, ecology, agency, constraint, participation, and generativity all have histories too.
Discovering those histories does not threaten GRR. It locates it. And perhaps that is precisely what must happen next in the development of relational reality.
Until now, the principal movement of the inquiry has been constructive.
We have asked what follows if relation is constitutive, if becoming is open, if coherent realities can emerge and persist, if worlds remain embedded within wider worlds, and if participants can alter the conditions inherited by further becoming.
Now the direction of inquiry must temporarily turn outward.
Instead of asking only:
What follows from GRR?
we must also ask several proceeding questions:
Where does GRR stand among the philosophies that have already explored these questions?
Which of its ideas have substantial precedents?
Where are the similarities genuine?
Where are they merely verbal?
Where have other philosophies gone farther than GRR?
And what might GRR need to revise after encountering them?
The purpose of this essay is therefore not to prove that Generative Relational Realism is original. Nor to demonstrate that GRR is superior to the philosophies considered here. Such a conclusion would prejudge the very comparisons we are about to undertake.
Instead, this essay will place GRR within a philosophical neighborhood already populated by serious accounts of process, relation, realism, structure, emergence, complexity, embodiment, ecology, constraint, agency, and participation.
Some of those philosophies will appear surprisingly close. Where that happens, the resemblance should be acknowledged rather than minimized. If another thinker has articulated an idea more fully, we should say so. If a tradition already possesses a stronger vocabulary for something GRR is attempting to describe, GRR should learn from it. If a distinction we regarded as important proves already well established elsewhere, its history should become part of our own understanding. There is no philosophical virtue in claiming novelty where there is inheritance.
But inheritance does not by itself settle philosophical identity.
A philosophy may share many concepts with neighboring systems while arranging those concepts differently, giving them different priorities, or placing them within a different account of reality.
That possibility has increasingly become our working hypothesis:
GRR's possible distinctiveness may lie less in the originality of its concepts than in the architecture through which those concepts are related.
But even that speculation must remain a hypothesis. This essay will not attempt to prove it. The task here is more modest:
Locate GRR honestly within the philosophical landscape from which it has emerged and beside the philosophies with which it now shares conceptual territory.
Only after doing this can we ask the harder question reserved for the essay that follows:
If so much of GRR can already be found elsewhere, what - if anything - is distinctively Generative Relational Realism?
We cannot know the answer before we arrive there. For now, it is enough to enter the conversation.
That fact immediately complicates any attempt to describe relationality as though it were a recent discovery. Long before GRR acquired its name, philosophers and scientists had challenged the image of reality as an assemblage of independently existing things whose relations, histories, environments, and organizations were merely secondary.
Process philosophy questioned the priority of static substance.
Critical realism emphasized emergence, causal powers, and open systems.
Structural and relational realisms challenged the independence traditionally attributed to objects.
Agential realism questioned whether relata must always precede their relations.
Systems and complexity approaches explored organization, feedback, self-organization, hierarchy, and constraint.
Other ecological, autopoietic, and enactive traditions situated living realities within the environments through which they persist and act.
GRR therefore enters an already crowded philosophical neighborhood.
But resemblance is not identity.
These traditions emerged from different questions and frequently mean different things even when they employ similar language. A philosophy of scientific structure is not the same as a sociology of relations. A biological account of self-maintaining organization is not automatically a general metaphysics. A theory of ecological perception does not become an ontology simply because organism and environment are understood relationally. And two philosophies may both speak of emergence while disagreeing profoundly about what emerges, how it emerges, and what causal significance the emergent reality possesses.
The task of comparison therefore cannot be merely to identify familiar words. It must ask what those words are doing philosophically.
This is especially important for GRR because none of its central terms is without precedent. Reality, relation, becoming, emergence, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, constraint, possibility, and generativity all belong to existing philosophical conversations. Even the claim that relations may be constitutive rather than merely external has substantial predecessors.
Yet, GRR's developing position is nevertheless more specific than the assertion that “everything is relational.”
It proposes that realities can arise through relation without thereby becoming indistinguishable from one another. Relational configurations can acquire coherence. Coherence can become embodied and persistent. Persistent realities remain embedded within wider relational fields while becoming capable of consequential participation within them. Their participation can alter surrounding conditions, and those altered conditions can become part of the possibilities inherited by what follows.
This is why one formulation has become particularly important:
Relation before relata does not mean relation without relata.
GRR does not seek to dissolve things into relations. It asks how differentiated realities themselves become relational achievements and how those achievements subsequently participate in further becoming.
The same caution applies to generativity.
GRR cannot distinguish itself merely by claiming that reality produces novelty. Whitehead already places creativity and novelty near the center of process metaphysics. Bhaskar speaks of generative mechanisms. Complexity and evolutionary theories investigate emergence and novelty. Deacon and Juarrero examine how constraints organize possibilities and generate new forms of coherence.
But again, GRR's developing claim is narrower and, perhaps, more consequential:
What becomes can alter what can become.
An achieved reality can enter into the conditions inherited by subsequent becoming. Stars change chemical possibilities. Organisms alter environments. Ecological innovations reshape niches. Technologies transform capacities. Institutions alter agency. Ideas influence actions, and actions alter histories.
Generativity, in this sense, concerns not merely the production of novelty but the historical and recursive alteration of possibility.
Yet even here we must be cautious. Feedback, niche construction, emergent causal powers, constraint, creativity, and evolutionary transformation may already explain much of what GRR calls recursive generativity. Comparison must determine how substantial those overlaps actually are.
That gives this essay its method.
We will ask i) what problem each neighboring philosophy is trying to solve, ii) what it regards as fundamental, and iii) how its principal concepts correspond to GRR. Where the resemblance is strong, we will acknowledge it. Where another philosophy explains something more rigorously than GRR presently does, GRR should learn from it. Where similar terminology conceals different metaphysical commitments, the difference should be made clear.
The purpose is not to protect GRR from its philosophical neighbors.
It is to locate GRR among them.
Our working hypothesis is that GRR may eventually prove distinctive less because of any one individual concept but because of the architecture through which its commitments are related.
Essay 32 will therefore leave this possibility open rather than presume its conclusion. GRR's location at the intersection of realism, process, relational ontology, emergence, complexity, embodiment, ecological embeddedness, participation, and generativity may ultimately reveal a distinctive philosophical architecture. Or it may reveal something more modest: a synthesis or convergence of insights already substantially available elsewhere. The comparison must be allowed to decide.
The question before us is therefore deliberately modest:
Where does Generative Relational Realism belong within contemporary philosophy?
Only after answering that question can we responsibly ask the harder one:
What, if anything, actually distinguishes GRR from its closest philosophical neighbors?
That question belongs to Essay 34.
For now, we begin with the philosophical tradition that most clearly opened the road into this inquiry: process philosophy and the reality of becoming.
---
Before proceeding, one qualification should be made before these comparisons begin. The philosophies considered here do not all operate at the same level or pursue the same philosophical task.
Whitehead develops a comprehensive process metaphysics and ontology;
Bhaskar develops Critical Realism through the philosophy of science and social science;
Donati develops a relational ontology principally within sociology and social theory; and,
Ontic Structural Realism emerges primarily from the philosophy of physics and philosophy of science.
Barad develops Agential Realism at the intersection of feminist theory, philosophy of science, and quantum physics; while
Deacon, Juarrero, systems theory, autopoiesis, enactivism, ecology, and complexity theory which are considered in essay 33 likewise enter the conversation from different disciplinary and philosophical locations.
The comparisons that follow therefore do not treat these traditions as interchangeable competitors. They ask instead what each contributes to the particular questions GRR is attempting to bring together within a wider metaphysical architecture.
We will begin then with Whitehead's Process Philosophy.
That genealogy matters because GRR did not begin by rejecting process. Quite the opposite. Process opened the inquiry that eventually led toward relation.
The traditional metaphysical picture inherited from much of Western philosophy begins with things = relata = Substances. That substances exist, possess properties, endure through time, and enter into relations with other substances. Change happens to things whose identities are assumed to be more fundamental than the changes they undergo.
Process philosophy reverses the emphasis.
Reality is not first composed of static beings that subsequently happen to change. Becoming belongs to reality itself. Events, activities, transitions, relations, and processes are not secondary disturbances occurring within an otherwise settled world. They are fundamental to what reality is.
For GRR, this was a decisive opening.
Whitehead and the Priority of BecomingNo figure is more important to this philosophic genealogy of inheritance than Alfred North Whitehead.
Whitehead's Process and Reality offers a metaphysics in which the fundamental realities are not enduring substances in the classical sense but events of becoming - named “actual occasions.” Each occasion arises through relations to an already existing world, integrates those relations within its own becoming, and contributes itself to the world inherited by subsequent occasions.
Reality is therefore deeply relational as well as processual.
This point requires emphasis because GRR should not distinguish itself from Whitehead by suggesting that process philosophy recognizes becoming while GRR subsequently discovers relation. Whitehead's becoming is already constituted through relation. His concept of prehension describes the way an actual occasion takes account of, or incorporates, aspects of other realities into its own becoming. What becomes does not become independently but relationally.
Whitehead therefore gives us something remarkably close to a principle that has become central to GRR:
The past becomes ingredient in the becoming of the present.
Each actuality inherits a world it did not create. Its becoming then contributes something to the world inherited by what follows.
This is not yet GRR's recursive generativity, but the family resemblance is substantial.
Whitehead also makes novelty fundamental. Reality is not merely repetitive. Through creativity, inherited conditions can enter new configurations. The future is therefore not simply the mechanical replay of the past.
Again, GRR stands on familiar ground.
The important question is therefore not whether GRR replaces Whiteheadian process with relation. It does not. The question is what happened when our own inquiry followed process more deeply.
If reality becomes, we began asking, what is becoming?
A process cannot be entirely unrelated to everything else and still meaningfully constitute a process. Becoming occurs through differences, conditions, interactions, inheritances, constraints, and possibilities. The more closely we examined becoming, the more difficult it became to speak of process without speaking of relation.
This produced the historical development of relational reality stated in the Preface:
Process → Relational Process → Relation → Relational Reality → Relational Philosophy
Relation did not defeat process.
Relation recontextualized it.
GRR consequently treats process as the dynamism of relational reality.
Relation identifies the ontological condition;
Process describes the activity through which relational reality becomes.
This is one of the places where GRR begins to move somewhat differently from Whitehead, although the difference should not yet be overstated.
Whitehead had constructed an elaborate metaphysical scheme around actual occasions, prehensions, concrescence, creativity, eternal objects, and the consequent structure of his cosmology.
GRR does not adopt that scheme. It begins instead with the more minimal claim that relation is ontologically primitive and asks what follows as relational configurations become organized, differentiated, embodied, and persistent.
That difference of starting point matters.
But it does not establish philosophical distinctiveness by itself.
Process philosophies face an enduring question:
If reality is fundamentally becoming, how do relatively stable things exist?
We encounter persons, organisms, mountains, stars, ecosystems, institutions, and galaxies that possess histories and recognizable continuity. A metaphysics of becoming must therefore explain persistence without quietly returning to static substance.
Whitehead had his own sophisticated resources for doing this. Accordingly, GRR likewise develops the problem through its own relational language of coherence, embodiment, and persistence.
Some relational configurations become sufficiently organized to achieve coherence. Some coherent configurations become embodied. Some embodied realities persist through continuing change.
Persistence therefore need not mean changelessness.
An organism persists while metabolizing. A forest persists while organisms are born and die. A river persists while its water continually changes. A person persists through biological, psychological, and relational change.
From a GRR perspective, these are not exceptions to becoming.
They are relational achievements within relational becoming.
This is important because GRR does not want process to dissolve reality into an undifferentiated flux. Becoming can produce differentiated realities that become consequential as differentiated realities.
As such, becoming does not merely unsettle what exists; it can also produce organization, differentiation, coherence, and enduring form. Relational configurations can become sufficiently coherent to emerge as distinguishable realities, persist through continuing change, and participate consequentially within the wider worlds in which they are embedded.
Difference and persistence, therefore, are not exceptions to becoming. They are among the achievements becoming can produce.
Thus GRR attempts to hold together two claims:
Reality becomes, and some becoming becomes persistently real.
The second claim does not negate the first.
It tells us something becoming can do.
Whitehead brings us even closer to GRR when becoming is understood historically.
No event begins from nothing. The world already possesses a history. Previous becoming provides conditions that subsequent becoming must inherit.
But inheritance is not identical to determination.
The inherited past constrains what can happen without necessarily specifying exactly what must happen.
This tension between inheritance and novelty is central to both process philosophy and GRR.
GRR develops it through the concept of open becoming. Reality is neither wholly predetermined nor wholly unconstrained. What becomes depends upon inherited conditions, but those conditions can permit more than one subsequent development.
Here again, GRR should resist easy claims of novelty. Whitehead already provides a powerful metaphysics of inheritance and creative becoming.
The more specific GRR question arises when we ask what happens when a novel achievement does more than become.
What happens when it persists long enough to alter the conditions inherited by what follows?
A first generation of stars changes the elemental composition available to later cosmic history. The evolution of photosynthesis alters atmospheric conditions for later life. A biological innovation changes ecological possibilities. Human language changes what can be communicated and inherited. Writing changes the possibilities of memory across generations.
The pattern is not merely:
past → present → future.
The present can transform the field through which the future becomes possible.
This is where GRR begins moving toward its stronger generative formulation:
What becomes can alter what can become.
Whether Whitehead's creativity, inheritance, and process already contain the essential metaphysical resources for this claim is an important question.
But it should not answer it prematurely.
GRR therefore stands close to Whitehead - closer, perhaps, than the simple movement from “process” to “relation” initially suggested.
Both understand reality dynamically.
Both reject the sufficiency of static substance.
Both make relation fundamental to becoming.
Both understand present actuality as inheriting a prior world.
Both preserve novelty within continuity.
Both permit what becomes to contribute to subsequent becoming.
So the differences between relational reality and processual reality are primarily matters of metaphysical architecture and emphasis between GRR and Whitehead.
GRR does not adopt Whitehead's actual occasions as the fundamental units of reality. It does not require eternal objects, concrescence, or Whitehead's larger cosmological scheme. Nor does it begin with creativity as the ultimate metaphysical principle.
Instead, GRR begins with relation through-and-through and follows the consequences of relational becoming with its own relational language of coherence, embodiment, persistence, embeddedness, participation, inheritance, and altered possibility.
This may eventually prove to be a significant difference.
Or it may prove that GRR has reconstructed, in a different vocabulary, territory already substantially available within process philosophy.
That question belongs especially to Essay 34.
For the present essay, the conclusion can be more modest.
Process philosophy places GRR within a well-established metaphysical tradition that understands reality through becoming rather than static being.
Whitehead also prevents GRR from making an easy distinction between process and relation. Process philosophy, at least in its Whiteheadian form, is already profoundly relational.
GRR's movement beyond process therefore cannot be:
Whitehead gave us becoming; GRR adds relation.
That would be historically and philosophically insufficient.
A better formulation is:
Whitehead showed how deeply relational becoming can be. GRR asks whether relation itself can serve as the more minimal ontological starting point from which becoming, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, and generativity can be developed.
That is a genuine difference in philosophical approach.
Whether it becomes a difference in philosophical substance remains to be tested.
For now, process philosophy establishes the first and most important fact about GRR's location:
GRR did not leave process behind. It emerged from within it.
Process opened the inquiry.
Relation deepened it.
And the conversation between them continues.
If Whitehead is GRR's clearest ancestor in becoming, Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism is one of its most important neighbors in realism, emergence, and generativity.
The resemblance begins with the word realism itself.
Bhaskar rejects the idea that reality can be reduced to what human beings observe, experience, or describe. Reality possesses structures and causal powers independently of whether those powers are presently known or even directly observable. What happens empirically may therefore be produced by mechanisms operating beneath or beyond what appears immediately to experience.
GRR begins from the same broad realist commitment -
That reality is not created by our descriptions of it.
But Bhaskar immediately makes realism more interesting by asking what kind of reality must exist for the events we encounter to occur.
A Stratified RealityCritical Realism distinguishes among the empirical, the actual, and the real.
The empirical concerns what is experienced or observed.
The actual includes events whether or not anyone observes them.
The real includes the structures, mechanisms, and causal powers capable of producing those events.
This matters because observable regularities do not exhaust causation.
A causal power can be real without always producing the same observable result. The world consists of open systems in which multiple mechanisms and conditions interact. A power may be present but counteracted, enabled, inhibited, or redirected by other circumstances.
Reality therefore possesses depth.
GRR shares this resistance to reducing reality to appearances or simple event sequences. It also shares Bhaskar's insistence that causal efficacy need not be understood through perfectly predictable regularities.
But Critical Realism introduces another idea even more relevant to GRR: emergence.
Higher-order realities can possess properties and causal powers that are not adequately reducible to their constituent parts considered separately. Organization matters. A complex reality can become capable of effects that its components do not possess independently.
Here the correspondence with GRR becomes substantial.
GRR likewise argues that relational configurations can acquire coherence, become embodied, persist, and eventually become consequential as differentiated realities.
A whole need not be unreal merely because it depends upon parts.
Dependence does not entail reduction.
The point of closest contact may be Bhaskar's language of generative mechanisms.
A generative mechanism is not simply an observed sequence in which one event regularly follows another. It refers to the real structures and causal powers through which events can be produced.
This immediately raises a caution for GRR.
The word generative already has an important philosophical history. GRR cannot simply use the term and assume that it has introduced a new metaphysical category.
But the comparison also reveals that the two uses are not identical.
Bhaskar's question is roughly:
What real structures and causal powers must exist for the events we observe to become possible?
GRR increasingly asks:
How can what has become alter the conditions of possibility inherited by what becomes next?
The first is concerned primarily with the generative powers through which events occur.
The second emphasizes the historical consequences of achieved realities.
The distinction can be illustrated simply.
A star possesses structures and causal powers capable of producing particular physical events. Critical Realism gives us a powerful way of insisting that those causal capacities are real whether or not anyone observes them.
GRR then asks what happens when the star's existence and activity alter the wider conditions of subsequent becoming. Stellar nucleosynthesis produces elements that later become available for planets, chemistry, and eventually life. What the star generates becomes part of the inherited material condition of later cosmic history.
The two descriptions are compatible.
But they emphasize different aspects of generativity.
Bhaskar directs attention toward the real causal mechanisms producing events.
GRR directs additional attention toward the way produced realities can themselves become conditions for later possibility.
That is the beginning of what GRR calls recursive generativity.
The distinction becomes clearer when emergence is considered through time. Suppose a new organization emerges.
For Critical Realism, the emergent reality may possess causal powers irreducible to those of its components. That is already a significant metaphysical claim.
GRR accepts it.
But GRR then follows the emergent reality farther.
Does it persist?
Does it become embedded within wider relational systems?
Does its activity alter those systems?
Do those alterations become inherited conditions for subsequent realities?
An emergent novelty that disappears immediately and an emergent novelty that transforms its environment do not possess the same generative history. And yet both conditions must be resident within generative realism.
Life provides an obvious example.
The emergence of photosynthetic organisms did not merely add another kind of organism to Earth. Their activity gradually transformed atmospheric and ecological conditions. Later organisms inherited a world altered by earlier life.
The emergent became environmental.
The environmental became inherited.
The inherited changed subsequent possibility.
GRR therefore places particular emphasis upon the sequence:
emergence → persistence → consequence → inheritance → altered possibility.
Yet we should not claim too much from this distinction. Critical Realism possesses substantial resources for understanding emergence, causal interaction, structural change, and historical transformation. Essay 34 will need to determine whether GRR's recursive generativity genuinely extends Bhaskar's generative realism or primarily reorganizes insights already available within it.
Where Relation EntersA more significant difference may concern the ontological starting point.
Critical Realism generally speaks of real entities, structures, mechanisms, and causal powers. Relations certainly matter within such a reality, but constitutive relation is not its universal ontological primitive.
GRR begins differently.
It asks how differentiated realities themselves arise through relational becoming.
An entity possessing causal powers is therefore not simply where GRR begins its analysis. GRR wants to know how relational configurations become coherent enough, embodied enough, and persistent enough to possess such powers in the first place.
This does not make GRR incompatible with Critical Realism.
It may instead place the two inquiries at different points in the explanatory sequence.
Bhaskar helps us understand why emergent realities and their causal powers should be regarded as genuinely real.
GRR asks how relational becoming produces differentiated realities capable of acquiring and exercising those powers, and how their exercise can subsequently alter the relational field.
That is a narrower and more defensible distinction than claiming that Critical Realism lacks relationality or historical transformation.
Where Critical Realism Places GRRCritical Realism therefore places GRR firmly within a realist tradition that rejects both reductionism and the identification of reality with human observation.
More importantly, Bhaskar shows that realism can already be generative.
Reality can possess causal depth.
Emergent organizations can acquire genuine powers.
Open systems can produce outcomes that are neither mechanically predictable nor causally arbitrary.
GRR shares all of this. Its developing contribution is to place those insights within an explicitly relational and recursive history of becoming: realities arise through relations, become coherent and persistent, exercise causal capacities within wider worlds, alter those worlds, and thereby participate in shaping the conditions inherited by what follows.
Whether that amounts to a philosophically distinctive form of realism remains unresolved.
For Essay 32, the more important conclusion is already clear:
GRR cannot claim generativity merely because reality possesses powers that generate events. Its stronger claim must concern how generated realities become participants in the generation of subsequent possibility.
Bhaskar therefore does more than provide GRR with a neighboring philosophy.
He forces GRR to say more precisely what it means by generative.
What relationship does GRR bear to philosophies already called relational realism?
This question matters because relational realism is not a term GRR can claim as its own. It already appears within philosophy and the social sciences, where it describes approaches that challenge the assumption that individuals or entities can be adequately understood apart from the relations through which they exist.
One particularly useful comparison comes from the relational sociology of Pierpaolo Donati.
Donati's project concerns social reality rather than metaphysics in the broad sense pursued by GRR. Yet the conceptual resemblance is significant because Donati resists two familiar alternatives: treating individuals as fundamentally independent units from which society is subsequently constructed, or treating social wholes as realities that absorb the individuals participating within them.
Relations matter in their own right.
For Donati, social relations are not merely external connections between already completed individuals. Relations can possess emergent properties and causal significance, while persons acquire capacities and identities through the relational contexts within which they participate.
That formulation comes remarkably close to a tension GRR has repeatedly attempted to preserve:
difference without isolation
The participant is real.
The relation is real.
Neither needs to eliminate the other.
Relation Without DissolutionThis is important for GRR because a relational ontology can easily be misunderstood as claiming that only relations exist.
But if relations are constitutive, what becomes of the things that are related?
GRR's answer has increasingly been:
Relation before relata does not mean relation without relata.
Relata can themselves be relational achievements.
A living organism, for example, depends upon molecular, cellular, ecological, and evolutionary relations through which it becomes and persists. Yet the organism is not therefore unreal. Its relational organization produces sufficient coherence and differentiation for it to become consequential as an organism.
If anything, the same principle of GRR becomes much easier to recognize in social reality.
A person is shaped by language, family, culture, institutions, history, economics, and innumerable interpersonal relations. Yet describing those constitutive relations does not require us to say that the person disappears into society.
Nor does recognizing the person require us to treat those relations as secondary.
Donati's relational sociology therefore provides an important example of how relations and differentiated participants can remain simultaneously real.
That is directly relevant to GRR.
The principal difference is one of scope.
Donati is primarily concerned with the social world: persons, families, institutions, networks, organizations, and social formations. GRR asks whether a relational account can be extended much more broadly.
Its question is not only:
How do social subjects arise and act relationally?
It is:
What if relational constitution belongs to reality across scales?
Atoms exist through physical relations.
Molecules arise through relational organization.
Cells persist through enormously complex networks of internal and environmental relations.
Organisms exist within ecosystems.
Persons exist within biological, social, cultural, technological, and ecological worlds.
Relations are not identical across these scales, and GRR should not pretend that they are. A molecular bond is not a friendship. An ecological dependency is not a social institution. A gravitational relation is not an ethical obligation.
Relationality does not erase qualitative difference.
GRR's claim is instead that no scale needs to be understood through absolutely self-sufficient entities whose relations are merely incidental to what they are.
This is where GRR moves beyond the domain of relational sociology toward relational ontology.
But the move must be justified rather than assumed.
The fact that social reality is relational does not prove that reality at every scale possesses the same metaphysical structure. GRR must therefore avoid simply projecting social categories downward onto physics or upward into cosmology.
GRR's broader claim must remain minimal:
Realities become what they are through relations appropriate to the kinds of realities they are.
That formulation allows relational continuity without relational sameness.
Donati also helps clarify another important GRR theme.
Relations can produce realities that subsequently participate in further relations.
A family, institution, organization, or community may emerge from relational activity, persist historically, and then become consequential to the persons and societies that inherit it.
This pattern resembles GRR's broader architecture.
Relations generate organization. Organization can acquire coherence and persistence. Persistent relational achievements can become participants within wider relational fields. Their participation can alter those fields.
Again, GRR extends the pattern beyond social reality.
The philosophical question is whether this extension is legitimate.
If it is, then social relationality becomes one particularly complex expression of a more pervasive relational reality rather than the model from which all other relations are metaphorically derived.
That distinction matters.
GRR does not claim that the universe is fundamentally social.
It claims that social reality is one emergent form of a universe that is fundamentally relational.
Donati therefore places GRR beside an existing tradition that already takes relations seriously as realities rather than treating them as secondary connections between self-sufficient individuals.
That comparison removes any temptation to present “relational realism” itself as GRR's philosophical innovation.
More importantly, it strengthens one of GRR's central safeguards.
A relational philosophy need not choose between independent individuals and an undifferentiated whole.
Relations can constitute differentiated realities.
Differentiated realities can persist.
Persistent realities can participate in further relations.
The possible difference is one of metaphysical scope.
Donati asks what follows when social reality is understood relationally.
GRR asks what follows if reality itself is understood relationally across multiple scales of becoming.
That does not make GRR a more complete version of Donati. They are undertaking different philosophical projects.
But the comparison helps locate GRR more precisely:
GRR belongs within relational realism, but attempts to carry the relational claim from particular domains toward a general ontology of becoming, differentiation, persistence, and participation.
Whether that generalization succeeds remains an open question.
For now, Donati has helped establish something equally important:
Relation need not compete with individuality.
A reality can be relationally constituted and nevertheless become genuinely differentiated.
And that prepares us for a more radical version of the same problem.
If relations are fundamental, how much ontological independence do objects possess at all?
That question takes us next to Ontic Structural Realism.
If Donati shows how relations can be constitutive without eliminating social participants, Ontic Structural Realism presses the problem much closer to fundamental ontology.
Associated particularly with philosophers such as James Ladyman, Don Ross, and Steven French, Ontic Structural Realism challenges the traditional assumption that reality is fundamentally composed of independently existing objects that subsequently stand in relations to one another.
The motivation arises partly from modern physics.
At fundamental physical scales, it becomes increasingly difficult to describe entities as classical individuals possessing entirely self-contained identities independent of the structures and relations within which they occur. Structural realists therefore ask whether structure and relation may possess greater ontological priority than objects traditionally understood.
This places OSR remarkably close to GRR.
GRR likewise resists beginning metaphysics with self-sufficient things.
But the comparison immediately raises a crucial question:
If relations or structures are fundamental, what becomes of the things that appear to inhabit reality?
That question matters enormously to GRR.
Structure and RelationStructural realism exists in several forms, and we should avoid treating them as though they make one uniform claim. Some versions retain objects while understanding them structurally or relationally; stronger formulations have questioned whether objects possess any fundamental ontological status independent of structure.
What matters for our purposes is the challenge itself. When asking whether the traditional metaphysical sequence - things first → relations second has the order wrong. GRR agrees. But GRR expresses the reversal somewhat differently. It does not begin with structure as its ontological primitive. It begins with relation.
The distinction may appear slight, but it could become important.
Structure ordinarily suggests some organization or pattern among relations. Similarly, GRR asks what must already have become for the case of structure to have arisen in the first place. If structure requires differentiation, organization, constraint, or patterned relation, then relation may be conceptually prior to structure.
From the GRR perspective, therefore:
relation makes structure possible, while structure represents one achievement of relational organization.
This is not yet an argument against OSR. Structural realists may understand structure broadly enough that much of what GRR calls relation already belongs within it.
But the difference in emphasis helps locate GRR.
GRR wants to follow relation into becoming, and becoming into the emergence of increasingly organized realities.
Here we encounter one of GRR's most important formulations:
Relation before relata does not mean relation without relata.
GRR does not want to solve substance metaphysics by simply replacing a universe of things with a universe in which only relations are real.
Instead, it asks whether relata themselves can become relational achievements.
Consider a molecule. Its constituent atoms and their organization matter, but the molecule possesses characteristics dependent upon the relations through which that molecular configuration exists. The molecule is not unreal because it is relationally constituted. On the contrary, the relational configuration is precisely what allows a differentiated molecular reality to exist.
The same pattern becomes increasingly obvious at higher levels of organization.
A cell depends upon an extraordinary organization of molecular processes and exchanges.
An organism depends upon cellular, physiological, ecological, and evolutionary relations.
An ecosystem depends upon interactions among organisms, climate, geology, chemistry, energy flows, and historical conditions.
In each case, relational constitution does not require ontological disappearance.
Something becomes sufficiently coherent to become something.
GRR therefore attempts to preserve both sides:
relations are constitutive, and relational achievements are real.
This is one place where GRR may eventually differ from stronger versions of OSR.
But we should be careful. Contemporary structural realism contains sophisticated attempts to preserve objects, patterns, scales, and emergent realities without returning to classical substance metaphysics. GRR cannot simply contrast itself with the most eliminative version of structural realism and declare the problem solved.
The real comparison is subtler.
From Structure to BecomingAnother difference concerns dynamism.
OSR asks primarily what contemporary science, especially physics, suggests about the ontological status of objects and structures.
GRR asks a somewhat different question:
How do relational realities become organized, differentiated, persistent, and consequential through time?
Structure matters to GRR, but structure is not enough.
A structure can change.
New structures can emerge.
Some configurations become coherent.
Some persist.
Some become embedded within larger organizations.
Some acquire capacities through which they affect surrounding realities.
GRR therefore emphasizes not simply relational organization but relational becoming.
The world is not only structured relationally.
Its structures have histories.
This historical dimension becomes especially important once persistence and inheritance enter the picture.
A relational achievement can survive long enough to affect the relational field in which subsequent realities emerge. Structure thereby becomes not merely an arrangement but a participant in further becoming.
That movement brings us again toward recursive generativity.
Scale and Real PatternsHere the work of Ladyman and Ross becomes particularly important.
Their naturalistic metaphysics does not require that every real thing occupy the same ontological level or possess the same kind of individuality. Their use of real patterns provides a way of treating higher-level organizations as genuinely real when those patterns carry explanatory and predictive significance.
This is close to GRR's insistence that relational constitution need not eliminate differentiated realities.
A galaxy can be real.
An organism can be real.
An ecosystem can be real.
A society can be real.
Their reality need not depend upon being metaphysically fundamental in exactly the same way.
GRR expresses this through scalar coherence and relational embeddedness.
Reality can contain worlds within worlds, with different kinds of coherent organization becoming consequential at different scales.
This correspondence is substantial.
Indeed, OSR may ultimately prove closer to GRR than the simple contrast between “structure” and “relation” initially suggests.
That is precisely why Essay 34 will need to return to it.
Where Ontic Structural Realism Places GRROntic Structural Realism places GRR within one of contemporary philosophy's strongest challenges to classical substance ontology.
It demonstrates that the priority of relation or structure over independently constituted objects is not peculiar to GRR.
Nor can GRR claim as novel the idea that individuality may depend upon relational organization.
The comparison nevertheless clarifies GRR's particular emphasis.
GRR does not wish to choose between relations and things.
It proposes instead that differentiated realities can emerge through relational becoming, acquire coherence and persistence, and subsequently participate as relata within further relations.
Thus the sequence is not:
things → relations
nor simply:
relations → no things.
It is closer to:
relations → relational organization → differentiated relata → further relations.
And because those further relations can produce new organization, the movement becomes recursive.
This places GRR close to structural realism while giving it a somewhat different center of gravity.
OSR asks whether structure is more fundamental than objects.
GRR asks:
How do relations generate structures and differentiated realities that subsequently become consequential within further relational becoming?
Whether that difference proves metaphysically substantial remains open. But OSR has already forced an important clarification. GRR cannot distinguish itself merely by saying that relations are fundamental. Others have traveled deeply into that territory.
Its stronger claim, if one exists, must concern what happens after relational constitution: how relational achievements become coherent, embodied, persistent, embedded, participatory, and generative.
And that brings us to a philosophy that pushes relational constitution even further - Karen Barad's Agential Realism.
If Ontic Structural Realism challenges the independence of objects, Karen Barad's Agential Realism presses the relational question even further.
Barad rejects the familiar assumption that independently constituted entities must exist before they can interact. Her term intra-action, deliberately contrasted with interaction, expresses the difference. Interaction ordinarily assumes that separate entities already exist and then enter into relation. Intra-action proposes that the boundaries and identities of relata emerge through the relations within which phenomena occur.
This creates an immediate and substantial correspondence with GRR.
GRR has likewise moved away from the picture:
things first, relations afterward.
Its developing claim that realities can become differentiated through relation places it surprisingly close to Barad.
Yet the resemblance must be handled carefully because Barad's philosophical project differs significantly from GRR's.
Intra-action and the Emergence of RelataBarad's Agential Realism develops through sustained engagement with quantum physics, particularly the work of Niels Bohr, while also extending into philosophy, feminist theory, epistemology, ethics, and material-discursive practices.
At the center of the account is the idea of phenomenon.
Phenomena are not simply encounters among independently constituted objects. They are the primary units within which distinctions, boundaries, and properties become determinate.
Thus Barad does not merely say that already existing things influence one another.
The more radical claim is that relata do not possess fully determinate identities prior to the intra-actions through which they emerge.
For GRR, this is an important challenge.
Our phrase:
Relation before relata does not mean relation without relata
now encounters a philosophy that has already developed a sophisticated account of how relata can emerge through relational phenomena.
GRR therefore cannot claim that the relational constitution of relata is uniquely its own.
Indeed, Barad may articulate that principle more radically than GRR presently does.
There is nevertheless an important point of convergence.
Relational constitution does not require an undifferentiated universe.
Difference can emerge within relation.
This matters because relational philosophies sometimes appear vulnerable to the objection that if everything is relational, individuality disappears. To this perspective Barad demonstrates another possibility: boundaries and distinctions can be real without being absolutely prior or permanently fixed.
GRR reaches a related conclusion through its language of relational achievement.
Relations can become organized.
Organization can acquire coherence.
Coherence can become embodied.
Embodied configurations can become sufficiently differentiated and persistent to participate consequentially within further relations.
The two philosophies are not saying precisely the same thing.
But both reject the assumption that reality must choose between independent individuality and undifferentiated relationality.
Difference itself can have a relational history.
That correspondence is substantial.
The divergence becomes clearer around the word agency.
Barad does not reserve agency for conscious organisms possessing intentions. Agency belongs to the ongoing reconfiguring of the world through intra-action. It is not fundamentally a property owned by independently existing individuals.
GRR has developed the term differently.
It begins with a more pervasive capacity for relational responsiveness. Realities affect and are affected. With increasing organization, some forms of responsiveness become more complex. Living systems maintain themselves, organisms act within environments, and some organisms develop increasingly flexible capacities for response, anticipation, choice, and eventually reflective deliberation.
GRR therefore treats agency developmentally.
The sequence is roughly:
responsiveness → organized participation → agency → intentional agency → responsible participation
This distinction protects GRR from attributing agency equally to every consequential relation.
A star can transform its environment without intending to do so.
A river can alter a landscape without deliberating.
A plant can respond to light without reflecting upon its response.
An animal may act flexibly within its environment without possessing the reflective capacities of a human participant.
And a human being can become responsible in a further sense because consequences can become objects of anticipation, interpretation, and deliberation.
GRR therefore distributes causal efficacy and responsiveness very broadly while reserving richer forms of agency for realities possessing the organization required to exercise them.
This is more than a terminological preference.
It reflects GRR's concern with emergent qualitative difference across scales.
This distinction helps clarify why participation has become so important within GRR.
Participation can be broader than agency.
A reality participates whenever its existence or activity becomes consequential within a relational field. It need not understand that participation.
Stars participate in cosmic becoming.
Organisms participate in ecological becoming.
Humans participate biologically, socially, technologically, culturally, and ethically.
But the forms of participation differ.
This allows GRR to affirm pervasive relational consequence without requiring every participant to possess the same kind of agency.
Barad's work presses GRR to justify this distinction rather than merely assume it. If agency can be understood as the world's ongoing material reconfiguration rather than as a capacity possessed by individuals, perhaps GRR's narrower vocabulary unnecessarily privileges organismic or human forms of action.
Conversely, GRR can ask whether broadening agency to encompass material reconfiguration obscures important emergent differences among causal efficacy, responsiveness, purposive action, consciousness, deliberation, and responsibility.
That disagreement should not be settled here.
It is precisely the kind of conceptual comparison Essay 34 must examine more closely.
Knowing from WithinBarad also becomes important when the discussion moves from ontology toward knowledge. If observers are themselves participants within reality, knowing cannot occur from an absolute position outside the world.
GRR strongly shares that intuition.
Conscious participants arise within the same reality they attempt to understand. Their bodies, histories, languages, instruments, communities, and inherited conceptual worlds shape what they can encounter and how they interpret it.
Yet this does not require GRR to conclude that reality is produced by interpretation.
Reality remains real independently of our descriptions.
The knower is simply inside the reality being known.
This will later become important for GRR's account of existential hermeneutics: conscious existence interprets reality from within becoming, provisionally and without access to a final view from nowhere.
Barad reaches this terrain through a different philosophical route, but the correspondence is important. Ontology and epistemology cannot be completely isolated when knowing itself is a real activity occurring within the world.
Ethics and ConsequenceBarad also connects relational ontology with responsibility.
If boundaries, actions, and exclusions are produced within material-discursive practices, then participation is consequential. How worlds are configured matters.
GRR likewise eventually moves from participation toward responsibility, but again through another developmental argument.
Once participants become capable of anticipating possible consequences, interpreting alternatives, deliberating among them, and responding intentionally, participation acquires an ethical dimension.
Responsibility does not descend upon reality from outside.
It becomes possible within reality when participants emerge who can understand enough about consequence to become answerable for how they participate.
Here Barad and GRR arrive near one another while traveling different conceptual paths.
The comparison therefore prevents GRR from presenting the connection between relationality and responsibility as unprecedented.
What may differ is the route through which responsibility becomes possible.
Where Agential Realism Places GRRBarad's Agential Realism places GRR beside one of the strongest contemporary accounts of relational constitution.
Barad demonstrates that the claim that relata emerge through relation already possesses a sophisticated philosophical development. She also challenges any easy separation among ontology, knowing, participation, and responsibility.
GRR shares much of this terrain.
Its possible difference lies principally in the broader developmental architecture through which it moves from relation toward differentiated forms of organization and participation.
GRR does not begin with agency.
It begins with relation and responsiveness.
Some relational configurations acquire coherence.
Some become embodied and persistent.
Some develop increasingly complex capacities for participation.
Some become agents.
Some agents become conscious and interpretive.
Some conscious participants become capable of responsible participation.
Thus GRR attempts to preserve continuity without collapsing qualitative difference.
The comparison can therefore be stated simply:
Barad asks how relata and boundaries emerge through intra-action. GRR asks how relationally constituted realities can become differentiated, persistent participants possessing increasingly complex capacities within further becoming.
The overlap is real. So is the difference in emphasis. Whether that difference is philosophically substantial remains unresolved. But Barad has already accomplished something important for our inquiry. She prevents GRR from claiming relational constitution as its discovery and forces it instead to ask a better question:
Once relata emerge relationally, what can relationally constituted realities become?
That question leads naturally toward emergence, constraint, coherence, and organized possibility - and toward two of GRR's closest contemporary conversation partners, Terrence Deacon and Alicia Juarrero.
No comments:
Post a Comment