Process-Relational Ontologies

Description

Zack Walsh:

"Process-relational ontologies posit that everything is co-created, constituted in and through relations to other things, human and nonhuman. We are literally in every moment of our existence co-creating one another and the world that we live in.

Many cultures, practices, and embodied ways of being in the world are informed by versions of process-relational ontology. Margaret introduced Native American traditions that consider both humans and nonhuman entities as persons. The stone and the river are seen as unique persons co-creating each other, which is why prayers often end with “for all my relations.” Processes of emergence extend outward, mutually influencing each other to varying degrees, through complex interconnections in the web of life. Peter Doran, a law professor from Queen’s University Belfast, introduced the Huayan tradition of Buddhism which uses the metaphor of a jeweled net to describe the infinite complexity of a multi-causal universe. At each node of the cosmic net, there is a multifaceted jewel that reflects all the others while keeping its own unique position. When one thing arises, all things arise simultaneously. Everything in this net has mutual causality, so that what happens to one thing happens to the entire universe.

Margaret Stout noted that a key distinction between undifferentiated and differentiated relational ontologies concerns the relationship between the parts and the whole. Undifferentiated relational ontologies completely fuse the parts within the whole, whereas differentiated relational ontologies maintain a distinction between parts and wholes. Soviet state communism is a good example of an oppressive governance structure that fuses individuals (parts) within larger forms of collectivism (wholes). Given that problematic sense of enclosure, Silke Helfrich and David Bollier explained why differentiated relational ontologies are better expressions of commons governance. Different individual agents collectively manage resources and organize society according to both their distinct agency, preferences, and values and at the same time, a collective understanding of how they can work together in larger systems of coordination and integration. Margaret noted that this understanding of commoning is a clear manifestation of Integrative Governance and its grounding in relational process ontology." (https://cdn6.commonsstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Zack-Walsh_Ontology-as-a-Hidden-Driver-of-Politics_def2.pdf?)

Characteristics

Zack Walsh:

"Differentiated relational ontologies, including process-relational ontology, are non-essentialist, meaning that they do not attribute a definitive character or essence to anything. Everything changes in relationship to everything else and the various potentials presented by each moment. It is therefore important to always leave concepts open for further reflection and definition.

Although process-relational ontologies have become an emerging topic of interest in recent scholarship, they have existed from time immemorial within indigenous traditions. As Zoe Todd (2016) explains, recent academic discourses often colonize that history. Academic discourse is often exclusionary and nondialogical, highly rational and assertive, and not open to the profoundly spiritual and emotional aspects at the core of ontological claims. Ontological dialogue therefore requires not only theorizing but embodied ways of sensemaking. This is one of the reasons why the patterns approach was discussed in this workshop." (https://cdn6.commonsstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Zack-Walsh_Ontology-as-a-Hidden-Driver-of-Politics_def2.pdf?)

Discussion

Zack Walsh paraphrasing Peter Doran:

"The modern frame is in active denial of some form of relationality. Western ontology, Peter said, is based on fear and insecurity. He said our bids for ontological security are complex responses to our deep vulnerability as a species. The paradox is that the privileged Western response valorizes control, self-sufficiency, heroic individualism, and a disembodied disposition that are built on a denial of our vulnerability and mortality, resulting in individuals feeling deep disconnection. Western ontological discourses are still haunted by bids for an “ontotheology”—a flight from the real, from mortality, from vulnerability, and from complexity. Western ontology is privileged, nevertheless, due to the historical and geopolitical power of western societies. Therefore, it is important not to lose sight of the role of hegemonic political power in privileging certain ontological claims in the world. Indeed, a growing number of scholars such as William Connolly, Sergei Prozorov, Bruno Latour, Marisol de la Cadena, and Mario Blaser see ontological conflicts as the deeper source of many political conflicts. Alexandros Kioupkiolis, a political scientist from Aristotle University, noted that attempts at political reform within the current paradigm are largely meaningless, because the paradigm itself is what drives today’s social and ecological crises. It is really important therefore to discuss ontological issues to get at the root of contemporary political problems. In such discussions, however, it is difficult to determine which ontology (if any) offers a more accurate description of the world. Conversation can become challenging as you try to reconcile different ontologies, so it is important to consider how we speak about ontology." (https://cdn6.commonsstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Zack-Walsh_Ontology-as-a-Hidden-Driver-of-Politics_def2.pdf?)

More information

• Stout, M. (2012). Competing ontologies: A primer for public administration. Public

Administration Review 72 (3): 388–398. doi: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02530.x

• Stout, M. & Love, J. M. (2013). Relational process ontology: A grounding for global

governance. Administration & Society 20(10): 1–35. doi: 10.1177/0095399713490692

• Stout, M. & Love, J.M. (2015) Integrative process: Follettian thinking from ontology to

administration. Anoka, MN: Process Century Press.

• Stout, M. & Love, J. M. (2016). A radically democratic response to global governance: Dystopian utopias.

New York: Routledge.

• Stout, M. & Love, J. M. (2019). Integrative governance: Generating sustainable responses to global crises.

London, UK: Routledge.