Why We Are in a Relationship Crisis.

Welcome to rewilding philosophy, your newsletter about ^ekophilosophical health for our times. The last two articles were about wholes and parts and the importance to be in right relation to both. Today, I talk more about the reason why I think that the meta-crisis is ultimately a relationship crisis, and how discussing it in these terms might benefit us.

---

“The purpose of science is “to make ourselves the masters and possessors of nature” Reneé Descartes

We have thought the world into pieces: our mind is separate from our body, our bodies are separate from the world, and we are separate individuals.

Bonita Roy once said that we need to put the mind back in the body and the body back into the world.

However, more and more people are becoming aware that the world doesn’t work as a machine of which we are separate parts. I've noticed that people often come to this understanding through one of three insights (or a combination): complex systems theory, indigenous or spiritual knowledge systems (such as the concept of interbeing, ubuntu and others), and through psychedelics or deep spiritual experiences.

In the following, I will share why we are in a relationship crisis through the lens of complex systems. The reason I argue from this perspective is telling you something about me. It’s not that I don’t embrace the concept of interbeing or that I haven’t had deep spiritual experiences that gave me glimpses of our interconnectedness. However, my experience has been that, especially when talking to people outside my usual circles, discussing the science behind interbeing is often more convincing than sharing a philosophy that essentially conveys the same message. Science is widely accepted as the most valid form of knowledge. If we can explain something in scientific terms, it is considered real. Currently, there is a trend to explain spirituality and magic through science, preferably quantum physics. While the parallels are fascinating, it also reinforces the idea that only science offers true knowledge. But that’s a topic for another discussion.

Relationships in Complex Systems Theory

“To address a food crisis is to address the relational, recursive density that food is contingent upon. It is to nourish the coming together of intergenerational farming, cooking, healing, holidays, ceremonies, culture, seasons, and markets—not to package nutrition bars. Likewise, if any complex system is in crisis, it is necessary to be very careful where the identification of the issue is placed.” Nora Bateson

The earth is a complex system. Navigating such a system isn't straightforward for the human mind, given our history of favoring deterministic worldviews with clear definitions and predictable outcomes. Insights from systems theory are invaluable for understanding our actions within the human-earth system. A key finding is that humans are intrinsic components of this system; we can't observe it objectively from the outside or intervene externally. We are constantly engaged as actors within the system, and our position within it shapes our perspective.

Complex systems rely on self-organization principles, where connections between causes and effects aren't always evident. The patterns emerging from these principles determine the system's overall behavior, influencing whether individuals within a group interact empathetically or competitively, which, in turn, affects the group's development.

Our relationship patterns are fundamentally shaped by two key factors: our philosophy and the contextual conditions and structures surrounding us. These factors are evident in interpersonal relationships. We emerge within a systemic context, whether it's our family, circle of friends, or society, and these contexts mold the patterns we encounter. Essentially, these patterns constitute the learned behaviors that enable us to navigate and make sense of the world. Moreover, they are mirrored in our brain structures, influencing our daily thoughts, perceptions, and actions.

As a side note: To change some of these contextual patterns, we need practical philosophy.

Anyways, from a sustainability perspective, it's critical to acknowledge that these patterns don't solely impact our relationships with ourselves and other individuals but also extend to our interactions with society at large and the more-than-human world. In essence, the entire civilizational system mirrors the prevailing relationship dynamics within it.

German sociologist Hartmut Rosa extensively researched how our society's dynamics are influenced by relationships primarily centered on utility. Rosa coined the term "instrumental relationships" to describe this phenomenon, where we tend to perceive objects, other individuals, and even ourselves primarily in terms of  roles in serving our goals, rather than appreciating them for their intrinsic value. Functional or instrumental relationships, on their own, aren't inherently negative. The problem arises when an excessive emphasis on functionality in relationships leads to exploitation and overuse.

Rosa contrasts such functional relationships with what he calls resonant relationships. These are relationships we enter into as an expression of our being, even if we don't derive any immediate benefit from them. In resonant relationships, we value both ourselves and others for their intrinsic worth, creating a sense of "resonance." Resonant relationships are markedly different from functional ones. When we recognize someone as intrinsically valuable, our actions are guided by care and consideration, even in the absence of personal advantages. For individuals who view a forest as inherently valuable, the task of managing and exploiting it efficiently becomes considerably more challenging.

There are additional qualities within relationships besides their level of resonance. Below are a few examples. I view each quality of relationships as existing on a spectrum. It's up to us to assess where we stand in various relationships:

POLE………………………………………………………………………………….….POLE

FEARFUL……………………………………………………………………TRUSTING

IGNORANT…………………………………………………………………..MINDFUL

SEPARATING……………………………………………………….CONNECTING

CRITICAL……………………………………………………………APPRECIATIVE

EGOISTIC………………………………………………………………..SUPPORTIVE

INSTRUMENTAL……………………………………………………..RESONANT

Relationships and the meta-crisis

“The biosphere is a network of relations between beings such as waves, coral, ideas about coral and oil-spewing tankers, a network that is an entity in its very own right…As the systems theorist Gregory Bateson implied when he wrote about ‘the ecology of mind’, mental issues are somehow ecological in this sense. How your thoughts are related equals what is called ‘mind’, and mind is like the biosphere. Even though it’s made up of thoughts, mind is independent of those thoughts, it affects them causally.” Timothy Morton

The meta-crisis encompasses multiple challenges such as global warming, social inequalities, scarcity of resources, species extinction, ocean acidification, increasing rates of depression, unpredictable technologies, post-truth rivalries, as well as an increasing divide within society. The philosopher Terry Patten speaks of the meta-crisis as “the sum of our ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political emergencies.”

Viewing these crises as relationship crisis means, for example:

• If our relationship patterns with the more-than-human world are primarily instrumental rather than resonant. Manifestation: species extinction, ocean acidification, and global warming.

• If our relationship patterns with other humans are predominantly fearful and divisive rather than trusting and connecting. Manifestation: rivalries and increasing divides within society.

• If our relationship patterns with material things are primarily ignorant rather than mindful. Manifestation: scarcity of resources.

• If our relationship patterns with politics are mainly skeptical rather than trusting. Manifestation: post-truth rivalries.

• If our relationship patterns with place are predominantly egoistic rather than supportive. Manifestation: global warming.

• If our relationship patterns with ourselves are primarily exploitative rather than mindful, supportive, and appreciative. Manifestation: burnout and mental health challenges.

• If our relationship patterns with higher beings, spirituality, and the animus are largely non-existent rather than embraced as unknowns. Manifestation: a loss of meaning in life.

Of course, each of these relationship patterns has nuances, and the manifestations I've outlined may not translate as simplistically as described. However, this doesn't mean that these parallels aren't useful or that thinking about the meta-crisis in these terms isn't helpful.

The benefits of talking about a relationship-crisis

My experience with using the term "meta-crisis" has been that it resonates only with a small, specific group of individuals. Beyond this well-curated circle, the term often fails to connect with people and instead tends to alienate them. This reaction is understandable, given the term's abstractness, lacking any sense of  immediacy and relatability which can create a sense of detachment from the real, tangible challenges we face. It feels delocalized and unattached, offering no direct link to personal experience or everyday life. Instead, it can leave us feeling disconnected, as if the problems being discussed are too large and too vague to have any personal relevance or to be effectively addressed at a local or individual level. I think for many, it seems like a distant, academic concept that doesn't address their individual concerns or lived realities.

Talking about a relationship crisis, on the other hand, makes the concept immediately relevant and personal. It brings it right down to us; on a human level. The framing allows to instantly reflect on our own connections: How is my relationship with myself, with other people, and with the more-than-human world? Is it hostile? Am I fearful? Am I receptive and open?

These questions personalize the broader issues, making them tangible and actionable. Everyone understands the importance of relationships, whether they are with family, friends, colleagues, or nature.

The relationship framing also highlights the entanglement of our personal lives and broader systemic issues. If my relationship with myself is fraught with self-doubt and negativity, it affects how I interact with others. If my relationships with other people are characterized by fear or hostility, it contributes to societal fragmentation. If I am disconnected from the more-than-human-world, it perpetuates environmental degradation.

Addressing systematic challenges as relationship dynamics, can foster a sense of agency and responsibility. We can see that improving our relationships at all levels—personal, social, and ecological—can contribute to resolving the larger crises we face and emphasize that the solutions to our global challenges begin with the way we relate to ourselves and each other. And this -  enhancing our relationships- will change our lives for the better even if we ultimately fail to address the meta-crisis. Because even if our solutions are not accepted by the majority, if the catastrophe continues to unfold, then this solution must at least still work on the level of our individual life. It should make life in a dangerous world and during times of failure worth living.

And how do we improve our relationships, well, this might come as a surprise coming from me: through living philosophically. But more about that another time.