The concept of Relation occupies a position of striking philosophical weight across the depth-psychology corpus, moving well beyond its grammatical or logical senses to claim ontological primacy. Simondon provides the most radical formulation: relation is not a rapport between pre-constituted terms but a modality of being itself, simultaneous with and constitutive of the terms it appears to connect. This ontological revaluation displaces the Aristotelian categorical treatment, wherein Relation appears as a derived, outward-looking genus subordinate to Substance—a position Plotinus both inherits and interrogates, noting that relation is ‘not self-pivoted, but looks outward,’ and therefore cannot rank among primary genera. Palamas, working within a theological framework, restricts relational predication to God’s creative and filial activity, preserving divine simplicity against compositional corruption. Heidegger’s passing treatment links relation to truth as adaequatio, while insisting that not every relation constitutes agreement. Benveniste contributes a semiotic and ethnolinguistic register, tracing structural relations in kinship nomenclature and sign systems. What unifies these divergent approaches is a shared anxiety about whether relation is derived from terms or productive of them—whether the individual, the sign, the deity, or the judging mind can be grasped relationally without being dissolved into pure relativity. The tension between substantialism and relationism runs as a deep current throughout the corpus, making Relation a site of perennial theoretical contention.
Relation is a modality of being; it is simultaneous with respect to the terms whose existence it guarantees. A relation must be grasped as a relation in being, a relation of being, a manner of being, and not a simple rapport between two terms
Simondon makes his foundational ontological claim that relation is not posterior to terms but constitutive of them, granting relation the full status of being.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020thesis
the individual is in relation neither with itself nor with other realities; it is the being of relation and not a being in relation, for relation is an intense operation, an active center.
Simondon distinguishes the individual as the agent or theater of relation rather than a term within it, radicalizing relation as dynamic activity rather than static linkage.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020thesis
scientific knowledge is a relation to being; however, in a similar doctrine, relation has the status of being. But the realism of knowledge must not be conceived as a substantialization of the concept
Simondon argues that realist epistemology is tenable only when relation itself carries ontological status, not when it reduces to substantialist categories.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020thesis
As for Relation, manifestly an offshoot, how can it be included among primaries? Relation is of thing ranged against thing; it is not self-pivoted, but looks outward.
Plotinus denies Relation the status of a primary genus precisely because its being is constituted by external reference rather than self-grounding, placing it below Substance in the ontological hierarchy.
, The Six Enneads, 270thesis
if Relation always takes the same form, the term is univocal [and specific differentiation is impossible]; if not, that is if it differs from case to case, the term is equivocal, and the same reality will not necessarily be implied by the mere use of the term Relation
Plotinus raises the problem of whether Relation names a single common reality or merely an equivocal class, pressing toward the question of what ontological substrate, if any, all relations share.
, The Six Enneads, 270supporting
God is supra-essential essence, in which can be seen only relation and activity or creation, and these two things do not produce in His essence any composition or change.
Palamas restricts relational predication to God’s creative and filial operations, insisting that divine relation involves no compositional alteration of the divine essence.
, The Philokalia, Volume 4, 1995supporting
relation manifests as a closure of the reflex arc, which is always qualified and oriented; higher up in sensible quality, a similar polarity… affectivity is present and available to establish relation.
Simondon traces how relation, grounded in organic affectivity, operates from the reflex level through psychological life, constituting the mediating principle of all communication and association.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
relation is essential for the Stoics, since it elevates the part that is man all the way up to the whole that is the cosmos-individual; conversely, for the atomists, relation can only distance man from the individual
Simondon maps the ancient ethical stakes of relation: Stoic cosmology exalts it as the bond between part and whole, while atomism treats relation as an alienating departure from the true (atomic) individual.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
this dissymmetrical relation is indeed the principle of the genesis of the crystal, and the dissymmetry continues throughout the genesis; whence results the nature of the indefiniteness of the crystal’s growth; becoming is not opposed to being; it is the constitutive relation of being qua individual.
Simondon uses crystalline genesis as a physical model demonstrating that dissymmetrical relation, not static form, constitutes the being of the individual through its becoming.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
the interpersonal relation only involves a certain zone of each of the personalities; but the particular coherence of each of the personalities makes it seem like the community exists for the whole ensemble of the two personalities
Simondon analyses how interpersonal relation operates through partial identity rather than complete communal fusion, complicating simple models of intersubjective communication.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
Every agreement, and therefore ‘truth’ as well, is a relation. But not every relation is an agreement. A sign points at what is indicated. Such indicating is a relation, but not
Heidegger distinguishes relation as a broader formal category from the specific relational structure of truth as adaequatio, refusing to collapse all relation into epistemic correspondence.
, Being and Time, 1962supporting
between these two extremes extends the dark relational zone, that of the real collective, the ontogenesis of which seems to be thrust back into the unknowable.
Simondon identifies a ‘dark relational zone’ between morphological and representational extremes of collective life, marking the limit of sociological objectivity with respect to transindividual relation.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
the mass of the corpuscle is variable according to speed… The dynamics of relativity therefore presents us with a corpuscle which cannot be characterized by a rigorously fixed mass representing the substantiality of an unchangeable matter, a support unmodified by accidental relations
Simondon uses relativistic physics to demonstrate that even physical individuality cannot be grounded in substance immune to relational modification, undermining atomist substantialism.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
there is in the transindividual relation a requirement of the subject to be called into question by himself, because this calling into question is already begun by others; the decentering of the subject relative to himself is carried out in part by others in the interindividual relation.
Simondon contrasts the transindividual relation, which demands genuine self-questioning, with the interindividual relation, which risks offering only functional mediation in place of authentic individuation.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020supporting
if we refuse to admit that being is fundamentally substance, the analysis of the phenomenon can no longer lead to the same relativism; the conditions of sensory experience indeed prevent a knowledge of physical reality through intuition alone.
Simondon rejects the Kantian relativism that follows from substantialist premises, opening space for a non-substantialist realism in which relational knowledge of being remains genuinely possible.
, Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information, 2020aside
if it brings forth a new horizon of meaning and opens new avenues of effort and work, then to that degree it is a transformative relationship. Such relationships are the triggers and the contexts for adult transformation
Stein identifies the transformative relationship as the catalyst and container for adult psychological individuation, framing relation in Jungian terms as the crucible of self-formation.
, Transformation Emergence of the Self (Volume 7) (Carolyn, 1998aside
a group—whether small or large—consists of individuals in a relationship to one another; and therefore the understanding of personality is the foundation for the understanding of social life.
Klein grounds social life in the relational matrix of individuals, making intrapsychic development the prerequisite for understanding collective relational structures.
, Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963, 1957aside