Relationism

The relational philosophy challenges the prevailing culture of materialism to take more account of family, faith and social responsibility.

"The Task Of Restoring Community And Morality Is One And The Same, And Derives From The Same Need; To Rescue The Self From Solitude, So That In Finding The 'We' We Can Learn To Say 'I'."

- Jonathan Sacks, The Chief Rabbi

The Relationships Foundation

David Lee and Michael Schluter are Britain’s leading advocates of relationism.

They see a western world that has never been more economically successful and has never spent more on welfare. And, yet, at the same time they see the growth of social problems like crime, family breakdown, drug addiction, self-harm and alienation. Perhaps they have paused to reflect on Mother Teresa’s conclusion that – despite all the abject material poverty she witnessed in Calcutta – the world’s greatest form of poverty is loneliness – a poverty of companionship.

Lee and Schluter - and their Relationships Foundation - believe that families and other people-sized institutions are more able to find answers to today’s social challenges than those statist and market institutions characterised by materialism and feed-and-forget thinking.

Britain's weakening relationships

The RF lists a number of statistics that illustrate the weakness of relationships within today’s Britain:

• 40% of households are now said to share a meal less than once a month…
• More than half the population believe they would feel lonely without a television…
• Nearly a third of young adults would not know their neighbours if they saw them (compared to nearly 75% of over 55s who regularly chat to their neighbours)…
• Two thirds of 6 to 17 years old have a TV in their bedroom (making watching TV mainly a solitary activity).

Do governments consider the relational costs of their policies?

Relationists worry that governments always know the financial cost of their actions but they rarely consider the relational costs of their policies. A relationist will worry that making single mothers go out to work will increase the household income but only at the cost of the child-mother bond. A relationist will fear that imprisonment in a remote jail might cut a man off from the support networks that may eventually get him off the conveyor belt to crime. A relationist will worry that the growth of narrowcasting makes it harder for a nation to hold a conversation about shared values.

Relational audits of public services and family impact statements are favoured policy tools of relationists.

Relational proximity

The best relationships will have five qualities according to the concept of 'relational proximity' developed by Lee and Schluter:

1. Directness: ideally people need to meet face-to-face;
2. Continuity: people should meet frequently, regularly and over a sustained period of time;
3. Multiplexity: people should meet in more than one role or context;
4. Parity; good adult relationships should not be based on role or status;
5. Commonality; common ends and experience are the basis of solid relationships.

[One could add a sixth factor covering the sustainability of relationships and the need for extended family and other support networks to help absorb difficulties.]

Without all or most of these characteristics relationships are weak. For example – in discontinuous relationships people can be forgotten. Unequal relationships can lead to bullying – even domestic abuse when the inequality is within the home. Relationships that aren’t rooted in shared understandings can lead to tension.

The individual and the person

Dr Jonathan Burnside (of RF) promotes relationalism as an alternative to liberalism. A number of beliefs central to liberalism are: freedom of the individual from arbitrary external authority; the individual as the source of his or her values; the regulation of social life by universal and impersonal laws; and equal opportunity for all. Although bringing many benefits this worldview undermines those relationships which nurture well-being.

Burnside:

"The word 'individual' emphasises the separateness of the person, whereas 'person' underscores the fact that we are constituted by relationships; that is, our identity, even our being, is dependent upon the fact of relationship".