Relationalism: Unity and Multiplicity

A thought unexpectedly came to me while I was in the gym today. I’ve been reading about Christian mysticism, and the soul’s journey toward union with God, and something dawned on me.

The mystical path moves a person from fragmentation to wholeness. From the many to the One. This sounds strangely familiar to how hierarchical structures build up in Relationalism. Where separate parts interact through relationships, and then this relationships interact with each other, slowly rising to the point of complete interaction.

Relationalism: A belief that the relationships between individuals and groups are as real as those individuals and groups, and have their own relational identity.

Consider a chair. In its unassembled state, it is a collection of separate individual parts; the wood, screws, fabric, and glue. Each piece has its own identity. Only when these parts enter into proper relationships with one another does something emerge. A single, coherent thing we call a chair. The many have become one through a collection of relationships.

We see this pattern everywhere. A human body is not one thing, but billions of cells and multiple organ systems drawn together in complex relationships.

A football team is eleven distinct individuals who, through training and shared purpose, become a single team with its own identity and character.

In each case, the relationships are not secondary. They are the mechanism by which multiplicity is gathered into unity.

The implications are both spiritual and practical. If relationships are the mechanism of unity, then the quality of our relationships matters. Whether in our families, with our friends, or between neighbours in our local communities. Disunity, fragmentation, and community breakdown occur when relationships deteriorate.

Through this lens, an organisation will rise or fall based upon the quality of its relationships. It is not just the professionalism and dynamism of the individuals which breed success, but ultimately how they interact.

A business might have an amazing product for sale, have access to significant funding and investment, or even have an experienced and effective leadership team. But without positive relationships between individuals and departments, barriers begin to form, and difficulties multiply.

History tells us about the rivalry between Steve Jobs and John Sculley at Apple in the mid-1980s. It led to Jobs being forced out, and nearly destroyed the company’s innovative culture.

At Boeing, fractured relationships between engineers and management contributed to serious safety oversights with the 737 MAX.

Enron collapsed because toxic relationships and a negative culture destroyed trust and accountability. So fraud could run rampant.

Relationalism suggests that these failures are not side issues. They play a central part in the running of a company. The quality of relationships across the organisation is an often overlooked factor that can determine whether a business thrives or falls apart.

Developing a detailed organisational chart, sophisticated process-driven programs, or AI monitoring systems can obscure the deeper relational issues buried within the business. These miss where cultural influence and unofficial information flows throughout the company, both of which are functions of the quality of relationships between individuals, teams, and departments.

The next steps in my discussion on Relationalism will begin to look at its application in the business world. An area where theology rarely, if ever, wanders.