Jesús Morán: Relationship and Relationality

“In the beginning is the relation.” Thus wrote Martin Buber, that great exponent of Jewish thought in the first half of the last century. Since then, and thanks to the developments that have been achieved by the philosophy of dialogue, this theory has been accepted as authoriative on the philosophical scene, with consequences for social life and for the very meaning of life. The human sciences in particular have made fruitful use of it. More and more we are thinking that relationship is what defines the human person. The ability to relate has therefore become important in every sphere of human activity. The failure of many noble undertakings, for example, could be traced back to relationship problems. Having a good relationship also garuntees a positive start and subsequent continuity. Relationship is truly necessary.

And yet, from my point of view, I would modify the statement made by that great Austrian-Israeli philosopher in this way: “In the beginning is the relationality.” What I mean is that the relationship is always secondary, because there is something deeper: relationality. It is the rational structure of the human person that allows him to enter into relationship, but it does not necessarily require a relationship with each other in order to be. Relationality involves being, relating and doing. Relationality and relationship do not oppose one another, but go distinctly because they touch upon two different dimensions of a person. The conclusion seems paradoxical: There are people that are poor in relationships but rich in relationality, and vice versa. Having many relationships is not necessarily an indicator of relationality. I give an extreme example: a cloistered nun can be more rich in relationality than a film star, even though she is numerically poorer in relationships. You can be open to the infinite without ever leaving your room, just as you can be closed in yourself while moving about in the midst of the world. Is it a matter of quantity and quality therefore? Yes and no.

What is decisive for the quality of relationships is the measure to which they originate in the rational structure of a person. So it is not a matter of quantity or quality, but of depth and reciprocity. Relationality comes from the depth of the human person and it is always open. It is open to reciprocity, whereas relationships do not always dodge the individual-entric temptations.Starting from the rational structure of the person therefore means being aware that there is something in our relationships that preceeds them and something that exceeds them. It means giving up controlling relationships, directly building them as if it depended on us. Relationships are not built; they are sought. This means that we must be attentive above all to what surprises us, to what is unexpected. The “will to power” that often characterises modern man tends to impose relationships, even for good reasons. This can happen, for example, in the father-son relationship, or between a couple. If we want relationships that are filled with relationality, we have to cultivate the attitude of expectation, listening, patience and absence. Relationality requires love along with a sort of passivity which, if well lived, is the only attitude that is really open to novelty.

The ethical implications of this distinction, which can appear purely academic, can be decisivc in certain cases. An example: If the person were primarily relationship, meaning the capacity to build relationships, then abortion would be legitimate because the embryo is not capable of building them. A comatose person would not have the right to live because of not being able to have relationships with others. But if what is at the root of a person is relationality, which does not need relationships in order to exist because it comes before them, then that changes things substantially.  

Source: Città Nuova, (January 2016).