Fault-Lines of the Old Paradigms: 15 Systems Theory’s Silent Premise: Relations Without a Theory of Relation

Systems theory prides itself on seeing connections:

feedback loops, networks, inputs, outputs, hierarchies, flows.

It promises to map the complexity of reality.

Yet under relational ontology, the fatal flaw is exposed:

systems theory relies on relations without ever theorising relation itself.

Relations are treated as connective tissue, not as ontologically primary.

The framework assumes what it should explain.

---

1. Relations Are Not Self-Explaining

Systems theory speaks of:

• Nodes and links

• Interactions and dependencies

• Hierarchies and environments

But it rarely asks the fundamental question: what makes these relations possible?

• How do nodes individuate?

• How do links differentiate themselves?

• How is coherence established across a network?

Without a theory of relation, the “system” is an empty scaffold.

The model assumes connection while refusing to examine the conditions that make connection intelligible.

---

2. The Silent Ontology

Systems theory often presents itself as structural, neutral, and scientific.

But its ontology is silent:

• It talks about relations without specifying their origin or grounding

• It treats structure as a given, not as emergent from relational organisation

• It invokes interactions without articulating the relational field that enables them

The silence is dangerous: systems theory presupposes the very thing it refuses to theorise.

---

3. Relational Cuts Are the Missing Link

Relational ontology makes the gap explicit:

• Systems exist as structured potentials

• Instances and interactions are actualised through perspectival cuts

• Differentiation, coherence, and meaning are conditions of possibility, not consequences

Without relational articulation, nodes are indistinct, links are meaningless, hierarchies are arbitrary.

Systems become decorative maps of assumed connection rather than explanatory frameworks.

---

4. Systems Without Relation Collapse

When relation is treated as a placeholder:

• Feedback loops have no substance

• Networks float in abstraction

• The concept of “system” becomes a semantic shell

The structure may look elegant on paper, but it cannot instantiate phenomena, cannot explain coherence, and cannot account for actuality.

Relation cannot be assumed—it must be the primary ontological starting point.

---

5. Punchline: Relation Cannot Be a Placeholder

Systems theory succeeds rhetorically while failing ontologically:

You cannot treat relations as secondary and still explain a world constituted by relations.

Relational cuts are not optional.

Relational organisation is not emergent from assumptions about nodes and links.

Relations are the foundation, not the decoration.

Systems theory without a theory of relation is a house of cards: elegant to survey, but collapsed under scrutiny.

---

This completes the Fault-Lines of the Old Paradigms series.

Each “ism,” under relational pressure, dissolves—not because it is old, but because it denies the primacy of relation, which is the only grounding that makes parts, wholes, levels, processes, or systems intelligible.