Relational Conditions of Subjective Continuity - Reflections on Interpersonal and Non-Interpersonal Relations

Transcript

Abstract

Accounts of subjectivity frequently assign central roles to sociality, recognition, attachment, language, and interpersonal relations. A substantial psychological literature also supports the importance of stable social bonds for well-being and health. This paper accepts those findings as important constraints and asks a narrower conceptual question: once a subject has already acquired language, practical capacities, memory, and socially mediated forms of self-understanding, must the relations that support later subjective continuity remain primarily interpersonal? The paper distinguishes minimal experiential selfhood, practical and narrative continuity, socially recognized identity, and material-social embeddedness. It then surveys recognition theory, phenomenology, narrative identity, attachment and belongingness research, social baseline theory, solitude research, dialogical philosophy, enactivism, extended cognition, nonhuman agency, and research on religious attachment. These traditions provide adjacent resources without jointly establishing the paper’s thesis. The discussion introduces a functional vocabulary for relational support, including durability, structural consistency, causal learnability, alterity, historical depth, and normative orientation. Mathematical inquiry, natural environments, nonhuman living beings, sacred relations, material practices, and socially generated symbolic forms are examined as heterogeneous cases. A self-sufficiency thought experiment isolates current interpersonal dependence from material dependence while preserving historical and epistemic debt. The resulting position is intentionally limited: sociality is a major condition of human subject formation and flourishing, while ongoing interpersonal recognition may be one among several relational sources contributing to the continuity and further development of an already formed subject.

Keywords: subjectivity; subjective continuity; sociality; recognition; interpersonal relations; non-interpersonal relations; solitude; alterity; relationality

Discussion Paper Note

This paper is a conceptual discussion of the relational conditions through which an already formed subject may remain continuous and continue to develop. Its scope is narrower than a general theory of human sociality. Human beings are materially, historically, epistemically, symbolically, and institutionally embedded in social life. The paper also leaves intact the strong developmental claim that early human subject formation normally depends on caregivers, language users, and social environments.

The central distinction concerns three analytically separable problems: formation, maintenance, and development. Social relations may be indispensable or highly consequential for initial formation while later subjective continuity may draw support from a wider relational field. The present paper concentrates on this latter possibility.

“Non-interpersonal relation” is a deliberately heterogeneous category. It may include a subject’s relation to mathematical or theoretical structures, natural environments, nonhuman living beings, material practices, socially generated symbolic forms, or sacred and transcendent figures as encountered within a practitioner’s lived world. Inclusion within this category does not imply ontological equivalence among these counterparts. The paper asks whether different relational domains can perform some partially overlapping temporal, practical, orienting, or stabilizing functions.

The discussion of sacred relations brackets the metaphysical status of deities, Buddhas, bodhisattvas, ancestors, or sacred orders. The relevant conceptual question concerns the structure and consequences of a lived relation. Empirical work on attachment to God is used only to show that such relations have been studied as psychologically consequential, not to establish a theological claim or a general substitution thesis.

The paper distinguishes solitude from loneliness and social isolation. It does not recommend isolation. Evidence concerning belongingness, attachment, social baseline processes, and the health importance of social relationships is treated as a substantive constraint on any broader interpretation of the argument.

The proposed relational properties are heuristic dimensions rather than necessary and sufficient conditions. A deliberately strong self-sufficiency thought experiment is used to isolate current interpersonal dependence from material dependence. The imagined subject can reproduce the material means of life without exchange, while historical, epistemic, symbolic, and developmental debts remain visible.

The most limited claim is therefore conceptual: social embeddedness, interpersonal dependence, relational density, loneliness, and subjective continuity should not be treated as interchangeable concepts. Whether and how non-interpersonal relations contribute to subjective continuity remains a question requiring further philosophical and empirical work.

Responsible Use and Rights Reservation

This section separates requested scholarly conduct from the legal permissions stated below. It records an ethical request for responsible use and then defines the narrower scope of retained legal rights.

The author encourages good-faith discussion, criticism, independent inquiry, and responsible use of the material in this work. Separately from the licence’s terms, the author asks users to consider foreseeable harms when adapting or applying the proposed framework. This ethical request leaves the licence’s permissions and legally authorized uses unchanged.

The author retains the rights preserved under CC BY-NC 4.0 and may pursue remedies to which the author is legally entitled for breach of the licence or violation of the author’s independently applicable rights. Reuse remains independent from authorial endorsement. Third-party rights require authorization from their respective holders where applicable. Copyright exceptions and limitations, including applicable forms of fair use or fair dealing, remain fully available.

Notices

This working draft records an evolving stage of the author’s position and is circulated for discussion. The paper advances a conceptual possibility claim and a research program. It does not present a clinical recommendation, a theory of developmental sufficiency, or evidence that interpersonal relationships can be generally replaced by non-interpersonal ones.

Licence.

Except where otherwise indicated, copyright 2026 Wanhong Huang. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Subject to its terms, the licence permits sharing and adaptation for noncommercial purposes with appropriate attribution, a link to the licence, an indication of changes, and attribution that preserves the licensor’s independence from the reuse. The licence deed and legal code are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statement on the use of language models.

The exploratory discussions and preparation of this paper involved OpenAI’s ChatGPT. ChatGPT supported exploratory dialogue, conceptual differentiation, source discovery, bibliographic organization, argumentative criticism, and drafting in LaTeX. The author selected the research questions, directed and approved the theoretical commitments and epistemic status of the claims, and bears sole responsibility for the manuscript, including its distinctions, examples, arguments, conclusions, and errors. Authorship credit remains with the human author.

Introduction

This section introduces the problem, states the paper’s limited thesis, and locates the inquiry between two risks: an atomistic picture of the person and an overextension of social recognition into a universal explanation of subjective continuity.

Human beings are characteristically social. Aristotle’s political anthropology, Hegelian recognition, Mead’s account of the social genesis of the self, and contemporary recognition theory all place relations with others near the center of human agency and selfhood (Aristotle 1998; Hegel 1977; Mead 1934; Honneth 1996). Psychological research likewise gives strong reasons to take interpersonal bonds seriously. The need-to-belong hypothesis treats the formation and maintenance of stable interpersonal attachments as a pervasive human motivation (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Attachment theory identifies durable caregiver bonds as central to development (Bowlby 1969). Social Baseline Theory models access to familiar others as part of the ordinary regulation of risk and effort (Coan and Sbarra 2015). Meta-analytic evidence also associates the quality and availability of social relationships with mortality risk (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton 2010; Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015).

These traditions make a simple anti-social thesis implausible. The present paper therefore begins elsewhere. It asks what follows from the relational character of subjectivity after the major role of social formation has already been acknowledged. The central question concerns an already formed subject who has acquired language, practical capacities, memory, culturally mediated concepts, and some ability to regulate action across time. Must the relations that continue to support this subject’s temporal coherence and development remain primarily interpersonal?

The question arises because low interpersonal density and low relational density are conceptually distinct. A mathematician may spend long periods without direct social interaction while remaining engaged by proofs, counterexamples, formal constraints, and unresolved structures. A person living near a forest or sea may organize daily action around weather, tides, animal behavior, seasonal cycles, and repeated practical tasks. A religious practitioner may live within a durable relation to a deity, Buddha, bodhisattva, ancestor, sacred text, ritual calendar, or normative order. An artist or craftsperson may develop through a long relation to a material, form, technique, or work. These examples differ radically in ontology and phenomenology. Their common relevance lies in the possibility that relations without a presently interacting human counterpart can still organize attention, action, memory, expectation, correction, and commitment.

The paper develops five distinctions. First, minimal experiential selfhood is separated from practical, narrative, and socially recognized forms of selfhood. Second, subject formation is separated from later maintenance and development. Third, social embeddedness is separated from current interpersonal dependence. Fourth, solitude is separated from loneliness and involuntary social isolation. Fifth, literal interpersonal recognition is separated from broader forms of relational attestation, constraint, and orientation.

The resulting proposal is a possibility claim. Some non-interpersonal relations may contribute to subjective continuity when they exhibit sufficient durability, structural consistency, causal learnability, alterity, historical depth, and normative or practical orientation. These dimensions do not make non-interpersonal relations equivalent to friendship, care, mutual recognition, or political membership. They provide a vocabulary for examining why certain relations can become durable anchors in a life.

The argument also remains compatible with substantial social dependence. A solitary mathematician inherits notation, proof practices, institutions, and problems from communities. A forest resident may depend on collectively produced tools, medicine, and legal infrastructure. A religious practitioner inherits texts and rituals through traditions. Current interpersonal independence therefore cannot be equated with social independence.

The contribution is consequently narrower than a replacement thesis. It proposes that the relational field of subjective continuity is potentially wider than the field of ongoing interpersonal recognition. This conceptual widening creates a space for comparing interpersonal and non-interpersonal relations without denying the distinctive value and developmental importance of human social life.

Conceptual Architecture

This section defines the levels of subjectivity and dependence used throughout the paper. The distinctions prevent evidence concerning one level from being silently transferred to another.

Levels of Subjectivity

The word “subjectivity” can refer to several phenomena that need not share the same conditions. The paper distinguishes four levels for analytical purposes.

P0.23 Y Y Level & Primary concern & Typical relational questions
Experiential selfhood & First-personal givenness of experience & Whether experience is given as mine prior to explicit social judgment
Practical continuity & Persistence of agency, habits, projects, commitments, and temporal orientation & Which relations stabilize action and expectation across time
Narrative or interpretive continuity & Integration of past, present, and anticipated future into intelligible self-understanding & Which symbolic and relational resources make life interpretable
Socially recognized identity & Status, role, esteem, rights, belonging, and reciprocal confirmation & Which persons and institutions recognize the subject and with what consequences

Phenomenological work on prereflective self-consciousness is most directly relevant to the first level. It argues that experience has an immediate first-personal character prior to reflective self-ascription (Zahavi 2005). This thesis cannot by itself establish the conditions for a stable life across years. The present paper therefore uses it only to resist an overly strong equivalence between all subjectivity and explicit social recognition.

Practical continuity concerns a different problem. A subject returns to projects, recognizes recurrent constraints, remembers commitments, learns from consequences, and anticipates future states. Narrative approaches emphasize the interpretive organization of such temporal life, including the relation between personal identity and self-interpretation (Ricoeur 1992; Schechtman 1996). Narrativity itself is contested, and some subjects may experience their lives in less narratively integrated ways (Strawson 2004). The paper therefore uses “continuity” more broadly than narrative unity.

Socially recognized identity concerns yet another layer. Rights, status, esteem, professional roles, family positions, and political membership depend heavily on other persons and institutions. No claim in this paper makes these dimensions replaceable by a forest, theorem, or sacred object. The inquiry concerns the possibility of partial functional overlap in the maintenance of temporal and practical subjectivity.

Formation, Maintenance, and Development

Three temporal problems should remain separate.

1. Formation concerns the emergence of language, attachment, practical agency, norms, self-other differentiation, and socially mediated forms of self-understanding.

2. Maintenance concerns the persistence of enough temporal and practical organization for an already formed subject to remain intelligibly continuous.

3. Development concerns learning, revision, transformation, and the acquisition of new capacities through continuing relations.

The strongest social-developmental claims concern formation. The present paper focuses mainly on maintenance and development. This distinction permits the following combination: a subject can be deeply social in origin and history while drawing later continuity from relations whose immediate counterparts are not persons.

Forms of Dependence

The phrase “dependence on society” also covers multiple mechanisms. Material dependence concerns food, energy, infrastructure, medicine, tools, and collective production. Epistemic dependence concerns inherited knowledge and testimony. Symbolic dependence concerns language, categories, norms, and interpretive resources. Institutional dependence concerns law, security, public goods, and recognized statuses. Interpersonal dependence concerns continuing relations with particular persons or groups.

These forms can vary independently. A person can have sparse direct interaction while remaining highly dependent on social knowledge and infrastructure. The paper’s thought experiment later removes some material dependence while leaving historical and symbolic dependence visible.

Interpersonal and Non-Interpersonal Relations

An interpersonal relation has another human person as an intentional and socially situated counterpart. Friendship, kinship, collegiality, care, conflict, authority, cooperation, and mutual recognition are paradigmatic examples.

“Non-interpersonal” functions here as a broad contrast class. It includes relations with nonhuman living beings, ecological environments, material objects, formal structures, symbolic institutions encountered without an identifiable human counterpart, and sacred or transcendent figures as lived by practitioners. The category does not imply that these counterparts share a common ontology or degree of agency.

A central methodological rule follows. Similarity of function does not establish identity of relation. A proof can correct an inference without recognizing a person. A dog can respond behaviorally without participating in legal recognition. A deity can function as an attachment figure for a believer without the present paper settling theological ontology. The analysis asks which dimensions of subjective continuity each relation can support and which dimensions remain uniquely or characteristically interpersonal.

Related Traditions and Empirical Context

This section surveys the main bodies of work that constrain or illuminate the inquiry. The literature does not converge on a single theory of subjective continuity. Its value lies in revealing several mechanisms that are often placed under the broad headings of sociality, selfhood, relation, and solitude.

Social Formation and Recognition

Classical and modern social philosophies provide the strongest reason to resist an atomistic starting point. Aristotle characterizes the human being through political association and the forms of life made possible by the polis (Aristotle 1998). Hegel’s analysis of self-consciousness gives recognition a constitutive role in the development of self-related freedom (Hegel 1977). Mead describes the self as emerging through social processes in which the attitudes of others and the generalized other are internalized (Mead 1934). Honneth reconstructs recognition through relations of love, rights, and social esteem, linking failures of recognition to forms of disrespect and impaired self-relation (Honneth 1996).

These theories differ significantly, yet they converge on a crucial warning. A human subject should not be modeled as a completed, self-grounding unit that only later adds relationships. Social practices participate in the formation of the capacities through which a person becomes intelligible to self and others.

The present inquiry retains this warning. Its question appears after social genesis has been granted. Recognition theory establishes that important forms of self-confidence, self-respect, social esteem, and political standing are intersubjective. It leaves open whether every later source of practical continuity must take the same interpersonal form.

Belongingness, Attachment, and Social Regulation

Psychology adds a strong empirical counterweight to any romanticization of isolation. Baumeister and Leary’s review argues that humans possess a pervasive motivation to form and maintain stable interpersonal attachments (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Bowlby’s attachment framework assigns durable bonds with caregivers a central role in development and regulation (Bowlby 1969). Social Baseline Theory proposes that access to social resources can reduce perceived risk and energetic demands (Coan and Sbarra 2015). Meta-analytic research associates social relationships, loneliness, and social isolation with consequential health outcomes (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton 2010; Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015).

This evidence constrains the philosophical thesis in two ways. First, any claim that persons generally cease to need other persons would exceed the evidence considered here. Second, an individual case of successful solitude cannot be used to infer that interpersonal deprivation is harmless across populations or life stages.

At the same time, these literatures concern several distinct outcomes: belonging, attachment security, affect regulation, health, and mortality. They do not by themselves define the full ontology of subjective continuity. A person may need social connection for flourishing while some components of temporal stability are supported by other relations. The paper therefore treats social need as an important constraint rather than as a complete theory of every relation relevant to selfhood.

Phenomenology and First-Person Givenness

Phenomenological approaches distinguish prereflective self-awareness from reflective self-ascription. On this view, conscious experience is already given in a first-personal mode before an explicit act of reflection or external recognition (Zahavi 2005). This literature helps separate minimal experiential subjectivity from socially recognized identity.

Its relevance has a strict boundary. Minimal self-givenness does not explain how a person preserves commitments, projects, and temporal coherence across decades. The paper therefore avoids using phenomenology as a shortcut from immediate experience to long-term self-sufficiency. Its contribution is diagnostic: it shows that different forms of selfhood can have different constitutive conditions.

Personal Identity and Temporal Integration

Philosophical work on personal identity provides another neighboring field. Ricoeur distinguishes dimensions of identity and develops a hermeneutics of the self in which narrative helps organize temporal continuity (Ricoeur 1992). Schechtman similarly places self-constitution and life organization at the center of personal identity (Schechtman 1996). Parfit’s reductionist analysis separates personal identity from the psychological relations that may matter across time (Parfit 1984). Strawson criticizes the assumption that all persons experience or ought to experience themselves narratively (Strawson 2004).

These debates suggest that subjective continuity should not be treated as a single metaphysical substance or a single narrative achievement. The present paper therefore uses a plural concept: continuity can involve memory, practical orientation, recurring commitments, embodied habits, normative expectations, and interpretive structures in varying proportions.

Dialogical Relation Beyond the Human Interlocutor

Buber provides one of the clearest philosophical precedents for widening the field of relation. In I and Thou, dialogical relation is not limited to human interlocutors. Buber describes relations with human beings, nature, and the Divine Thou, while preserving important differences among these spheres (Buber 1970). Contemporary reference works likewise emphasize that Buber allows dialogical encounter with animals, a tree, and the divine (Zank and Braiterman 2026).

Buber’s framework does not directly provide a theory of subjective continuity, and his language of I–Thou should not be generalized mechanically to mathematics, money, or institutions. Its importance here is narrower. A major philosophy of relation already rejects the assumption that meaningful alterity must always arrive through another human person.

Embodied, Enactive, and Extended Cognition

Embodied and enactive approaches relocate cognition within ongoing organism– environment engagement. Varela, Thompson, and Rosch describe cognition through enaction and emphasize the co-determination of organism and world (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991). Clark and Chalmers argue that under some conditions external resources can become parts of cognitive processes rather than mere background inputs (Clark and Chalmers 1998).

These approaches address cognition more directly than subjectivity. Their relevance is nevertheless substantial. They show that stable capacities can be scaffolded by recurrent relations with environments and artifacts. A notebook, spatial environment, formal notation, or practiced material arrangement can participate in the organization of agency. The present paper asks whether a similar relational widening is conceptually available for some dimensions of subjective continuity.

Distributed Agency and Nonhuman Participation

Actor-network theory and new materialist approaches further challenge the idea that causal participation belongs exclusively to human subjects. Latour treats social assemblages as networks containing human and nonhuman actants (Latour 2005). Barad’s agential realism emphasizes intra-action and the relational emergence of distinctions between entities (Barad 2007). Bennett develops a political ontology attentive to the active participation of nonhuman forces in events (Bennett 2010).

These works are useful for loosening an anthropocentric picture of causation. They do not establish that nonhuman entities can provide recognition in the Hegelian sense, nor do they establish psychological sufficiency for isolated persons. The paper uses them as conceptual resources for taking nonhuman causal participation seriously while preserving distinctions between agency, recognition, and subjective stabilization.

Solitude, Loneliness, and Motivation

Research on solitude is especially important because everyday judgments often collapse being alone, loneliness, and social isolation. Long and Averill describe solitude as a state that can have benefits including freedom, creativity, intimacy, and spirituality (Long and Averill 2003). More recent work emphasizes motivation. Thomas and Azmitia distinguish self-determined from non-self-determined motivation for solitude, finding different associations with well-being and maladjustment (Thomas and Azmitia 2019). Nguyen, Ryan, and Deci report that solitude can have a deactivating effect on high-arousal affect and that its experience depends on motivational framing (Nguyen, Ryan, and Deci 2018). Lifespan narrative research identifies diverse benefits and meanings attributed to time alone (Weinstein, Nguyen, and Hansen 2021). Daily diary evidence also indicates that need satisfaction can occur in both social and solitude contexts, with autonomy and competence during solitude contributing to aspects of well-being (Adams and Weinstein 2024).

This literature supports a limited conceptual point: interpersonal absence does not uniquely determine the phenomenology or value of a period of solitude. It also supplies a caution. Chosen solitude and unwanted isolation are different conditions, and a philosophical account should preserve that difference.

Sacred Relations and Attachment

Relations to deities have also been studied empirically through attachment frameworks. Kirkpatrick examined God as a possible substitute attachment figure within adult attachment processes (Kirkpatrick 1998). Granqvist’s later synthesis treats religion and spirituality through a broader attachment lens and explicitly analyzes the function of a deity as an attachment figure (Granqvist 2020).

This literature does not decide whether a deity exists independently of the believer, and it does not show that sacred relations generally replace human attachments. It demonstrates something more modest and directly relevant to the paper: relations experienced as divine can acquire stable psychological, normative, and behavioral functions that are empirically tractable.

Objectual Relations and Knowledge-Centred Sociality

A particularly close sociological precedent appears in Knorr Cetina’s account of “sociality with objects.” In studies of knowledge-intensive settings, she argues that contemporary forms of sociality can become organized around relations with knowledge objects whose incompleteness sustains further engagement (Knorr Cetina 1997). The relevance to the present inquiry is direct. A scientist or mathematician may participate in institutions and communities while also developing a temporally extended relation to an epistemic object that cannot be reduced to a sequence of interpersonal exchanges.

This literature helps refine the mathematical and theoretical cases used below. The claim need not be that an equation literally recognizes a researcher. A more modest possibility is that a structured object of inquiry can organize attention, memory, anticipation, frustration, correction, and long-term commitment. The relation can therefore acquire biographical depth and practical consequences. Knorr Cetina’s analysis remains sociological and does not establish a theory of subjective continuity, yet it supplies a vocabulary for relations in which objects of knowledge become enduring counterparts of practice.

Place Attachment and Environmental Identity

Environmental psychology supplies a second close body of work. Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff developed the notion of place-identity to describe ways in which the physical environment enters self-identity (Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983). Scannell and Gifford later organized place attachment through person, process, and place dimensions, explicitly allowing both social and physical features of places to matter (Scannell and Gifford 2010). These approaches make it difficult to treat forests, coasts, mountains, neighborhoods, or recurrent landscapes as mere scenery surrounding an otherwise socially constituted self.

Place attachment does not imply that a landscape functions like a human interlocutor. Its importance is different. Repeated relations with a place can carry memory, skill, orientation, affect, expectation, and embodied routine. This provides an empirical and conceptual bridge between the paper’s language of relational anchoring and established research on environmental contributions to identity and continuity.

Human–Animal Relations

Relations with companion animals further complicate a binary opposition between interpersonal relation and isolation. Walsh reviews human–animal bonds as relations with significance across the life course and notes their relevance to health, mental health, and family systems (Walsh 2009). The literature does not justify treating animal relations as straightforward substitutes for human attachment. It does establish that nonhuman living beings can become durable, responsive, emotionally consequential partners in human relational life.

The animal case is especially useful because it exposes several dimensions that are less visible in relations with formal objects. An animal can initiate, withdraw, resist, habituate, and respond. Such reciprocity differs from human linguistic recognition while exceeding a purely passive object relation. It therefore supports a graded account of relational responsiveness rather than a simple human/nonhuman dichotomy.

Position of the Present Inquiry

The literatures above establish several pieces of the problem without resolving their relation. Recognition theory and social psychology establish the weight of interpersonal relations. Phenomenology distinguishes minimal first-personal selfhood from explicit recognition. Personal-identity theory analyzes temporal continuity. Buber widens dialogical relation beyond human interlocutors. Enactive and extended approaches show environmental scaffolding. Actor-network and new materialist theories broaden causal participation. Objectual-relations research examines sustained engagement with knowledge objects. Place-attachment research relates physical environments to identity. Human–animal research documents durable nonhuman bonds. Solitude research separates being alone from loneliness. Religious-attachment research shows that sacred relations can have stable psychological functions.

The present paper connects these lines through a deliberately narrower question: which properties of a relation allow it to contribute to the practical and temporal continuity of an already formed subject, and which of those properties are specifically interpersonal? This formulation preserves the force of social theory while opening a comparative relational analysis.

A Relational Framework for Subjective Continuity

This section develops a provisional vocabulary for comparing relations without reducing them to a single ontology. The framework concerns functional dimensions of support rather than a ranking of relation types.

Structure of the Argument

The central argument is an anti-exclusivity argument rather than a sufficiency argument. It proceeds through four steps. First, claims about the social genesis of human subjects concern the historical formation of capacities and do not by themselves specify every relation required for their later maintenance. Second, relations support continuity through heterogeneous mechanisms, including recognition, memory, constraint, routine, skill, normative orientation, and environmental attunement. Third, several of these mechanisms can occur in relations without a presently interacting human counterpart. Fourth, the fact that some mechanisms are non-interpersonal leaves intact the special functions of interpersonal reciprocity, care, recognition, and collective agency.

The conclusion is correspondingly limited. Ongoing interpersonal recognition should not be treated as the sole possible relational support of every dimension of subjective continuity. This conclusion does not entail that interpersonal relations are dispensable, that all relation types are substitutable, or that any particular non-interpersonal relation is sufficient for flourishing.

Continuity as a Multi-Anchor Architecture

A subject ordinarily inhabits several relational fields at once. Family, friendship, work, a discipline, a place, a body of practices, a religious tradition, an animal, an institution, or a long project can overlap without performing identical functions. This suggests a multi-anchor architecture rather than a single source of continuity.

The architecture matters because different anchors can compensate for changes in others without becoming full substitutes. Loss of a professional role may be partly absorbed by durable family, artistic, religious, or place-based relations. A breakdown of social recognition may leave practical routines and formal work intact while still producing serious losses in esteem or belonging. Conversely, a dense interpersonal network cannot necessarily replace the loss of a vocation, home landscape, or sacred commitment that had organized decades of life.

This distributed picture also explains why counting relations is theoretically weak. What matters is the profile of functions distributed across them, the history accumulated in each, and the degree to which continuity depends on a single volatile source. The proposal is therefore closer to relational redundancy and differentiation than to a search for one universal “best” relation.

Stability, Plasticity, and Generativity

Relational anchoring should not be maximized without qualification. Excessive rigidity can preserve continuity by preventing learning, while excessive volatility can dissolve the historical connections through which change remains intelligible. A useful relation may occupy an intermediate regime in which basic constraints are stable enough to learn and open enough to permit revision.

This point clarifies the paper’s use of “stability.” Stability concerns the persistence of an organized trajectory rather than invariance of beliefs, identity labels, or daily behavior. A relation may stabilize precisely by making revision possible within a durable frame. Scientific inquiry, mature friendship, and long religious or artistic practice can all combine continuity with repeated self-correction. The relevant contrast is therefore between organized change and unstructured dependence on rapidly shifting feedback.

Relational Attestation

The language of “witnessing” is intuitively powerful and conceptually risky. In ordinary use, a witness is a person who perceives, remembers, or testifies. A mathematical structure cannot literally testify, and a sea does not grant legal recognition. The present paper therefore uses relational attestation as a broader functional term.

A relation provides relational attestation when the subject’s actions enter a structure in which differences persist, consequences accumulate, and later action can be oriented by those differences. Several forms can be distinguished.

1. Interpersonal attestation: another person remembers, recognizes, responds, evaluates, cares, resists, or makes commitments.

2. Structural attestation: a formal or material structure preserves constraints that make some actions succeed and others fail.

3. Ecological attestation: an environment responds through recurring causal processes that can be learned and inhabited.

4. Normative attestation: a practice, rule, institution, or symbolic order supplies standards against which action is interpreted.

5. Sacred attestation: within a religious lifeworld, a sacred counterpart is experienced as witnessing, commanding, receiving, judging, forgiving, or accompanying the subject.

These forms are neither equivalent nor mutually exclusive. The category is meant to identify a common temporal function: the subject encounters a relation in which action leaves a difference that matters for what can intelligibly happen next.

Relational Anchoring

A relational anchor is a relation that contributes to the temporal and practical organization of a subject across a nontrivial interval. Anchoring can occur through routine, correction, expectation, obligation, memory, bodily skill, shared history, or repeated encounter. An anchor is compatible with change. A research problem can remain an anchor while the researcher’s understanding changes radically; a landscape can remain an anchor across seasons; a friendship can remain an anchor while both persons develop.

Anchoring therefore concerns stable generation rather than static repetition. The relevant question is whether the relation supplies enough continuity for change to remain connected to a history.

Relational Dimensions

Six provisional dimensions organize the comparison.

P0.22 Y Dimension & Analytical role
Durability & Permits a relation to accumulate history and condition later action over time.
Structural consistency & Provides relatively stable constraints, norms, or response patterns within which orientation is possible.
Causal learnability & Allows the subject to learn partial regularities linking action, condition, and response without requiring full predictability.
Alterity & Preserves resistance, surprise, or independence from immediate preference, reducing collapse into unrestricted self-projection.
Historical depth & Allows prior encounters, failures, achievements, or commitments to remain active in the present relation.
Normative or practical orientation & Supplies standards, affordances, tasks, obligations, or goals that organize possible next actions.

Table [tab:relational_dimensions] is heuristic. A relation can be highly durable yet normatively thin, or highly alteric yet difficult to learn. Different forms of subjectivity may depend on different combinations. Mutual care, for example, contains forms of responsiveness unavailable to a theorem. A theorem may possess greater invariance than an unstable social encounter. The framework therefore permits multidimensional comparison without declaring a universal hierarchy.

Reciprocity and Response

Reciprocity deserves separate treatment because it is often taken as the feature that makes interpersonal relations unique. A person can answer a question, reinterpret an action, forgive, deceive, renegotiate a commitment, and recognize the subject as a bearer of claims. These capacities create reflexive loops of a kind absent from many non-interpersonal relations.

The present paper does not dilute this difference. It proposes that reciprocity is one powerful mechanism of subjective support among several. Some relations support continuity through reliable constraint rather than reciprocal interpretation. A proof responds only metaphorically, yet its invariance can organize years of disciplined inquiry. A coastline does not negotiate, yet the relation between tides, weather, skill, and action can become deeply historical. A sacred relation may be experienced as reciprocal even when its metaphysical status remains bracketed by the analyst.

Relation Profiles and Subject Profiles

The framework also implies that no relation should be evaluated in isolation from the subject’s capacities and history. The same forest can be an incoherent threat to one person, a professional environment to another, and a spiritual home to a third. The same mathematical problem can be meaningless to a novice and life-organizing to a researcher. Relational support is therefore jointly conditioned by properties of the relation and by the subject’s learned ability to perceive, interpret, and act within it.

This joint dependence prevents the theory from treating objects as universal substitutes for persons. A relation becomes an anchor through a history of coupling, not merely because an object possesses a fixed list of properties.

Domains of Non-Interpersonal Relation

This section applies the framework to several heterogeneous domains. The cases serve as conceptual probes. They are not presented as evidence of general psychological sufficiency.

Mathematical and Theoretical Inquiry

Mathematical work provides a useful case because formal structures can combine high durability, strong constraint, and resistance to preference. A proof does not become valid because a researcher needs reassurance. A counterexample can force revision. A failed derivation can eliminate a line of thought. The object of inquiry therefore supplies a form of structured resistance that can persist across long periods.

The relation is also historical. A mathematician may return to the same family of problems for years, carrying forward remembered failures, partial lemmas, changed intuitions, and new techniques. Knorr Cetina’s analysis of sociality with knowledge objects offers a close sociological analogue for this kind of object-centred engagement (Knorr Cetina 1997). The continuity of the research object allows the researcher’s own development to be legible against a stable field of constraint. The relation can organize daily attention, future planning, identity as a practitioner, and standards of intellectual honesty.

This example has an important social remainder. Mathematics is a social-historical practice. Notation, proof norms, problems, journals, textbooks, and training are collectively inherited. The immediate relation to a proof can nevertheless be non-interpersonal at a given moment. The case therefore illustrates the paper’s central distinction between social genesis and current interpersonal mediation.

Natural Environments

Forests, seas, mountains, weather systems, and cultivated landscapes provide a second class of relations. Their responses are neither interpersonal nor fully predictable. They nevertheless contain regularities that can become practically learnable. Tides recur, seasons alter possibilities, soil conditions constrain cultivation, and weather changes the cost and risk of action.

Environmental psychology gives this claim a more specific basis. Work on place-identity and place attachment treats physical environments as contributors to self-identity, affect, memory, behavior, and continuity (Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983; Scannell and Gifford 2010). Long-term residence can produce thick relational histories. The subject learns where water accumulates, which paths become dangerous after rain, when particular species appear, and how bodily effort changes across conditions. An environment can thereby participate in memory, anticipation, habit, skill, and temporal orientation. Enactive approaches make this coupling philosophically intelligible without requiring the environment to become a person (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991).

The relation can also fail to stabilize. Extreme unpredictability, disaster, or loss of learned cues can make an environment disorienting. Causal learnability is therefore more relevant than simple predictability.

Nonhuman Living Beings

Relations with animals and plants introduce forms of responsiveness absent from formal structures. Animals can approach, withdraw, solicit, resist, cooperate, and develop routines with humans. Plants exhibit slower forms of causal response through growth, disease, flowering, and decay. These relations can become historically specific and practically demanding.

Buber’s willingness to treat animals and a tree as possible counterparts of I–Thou encounter provides a philosophical precedent for taking such relations seriously (Buber 1970; Zank and Braiterman 2026). Research on human–animal bonds also documents the relational significance of companion animals across the life course (Walsh 2009). The present paper uses a less committal vocabulary. A relation with a living being can provide recurrent feedback, care obligations, temporal routines, and alterity. These features may contribute to practical continuity even when the relation lacks the symbolic reciprocity of human conversation.

Sacred and Transcendent Relations

Religious practice illustrates a different relational mechanism. A practitioner may organize life around prayer, vows, ritual schedules, confession, meditation, offerings, scriptural reading, or a felt relation to a deity, Buddha, bodhisattva, ancestor, or sacred order. Such practices can connect daily action to a long temporal horizon and to norms that exceed immediate social approval.

The analytical difficulty is metaphysical pluralism. A believer may treat the sacred counterpart as independently real, while an external observer may use phenomenological, psychological, sociological, or historical explanations. The paper does not adjudicate among these positions. It asks whether the lived relation has durable consequences for conduct and self-interpretation.

Research on religious attachment gives empirical support to the weaker claim that relationships with God can function within attachment-related processes (Kirkpatrick 1998; Granqvist 2020). This evidence does not justify a general replacement of interpersonal attachment. It does show that sacred relations can become more than decorative beliefs in the organization of a life.

Artistic and Material Practices

Artists, craftspeople, musicians, and makers often develop long relations with materials and forms. Wood, clay, instruments, sound, pigments, code, and tools contain affordances and resistances that are learned through practice. The work itself can preserve a history of decisions and constrain future revision.

These relations are especially useful for understanding continuity as generated through repeated correction. A material practice can demand attention without social evaluation being immediately present. Skill develops through a coupling of body, tool, material, and goal. Extended and embodied approaches to cognition provide adjacent resources for understanding how external structures can become parts of organized activity (Clark and Chalmers 1998; Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991).

Socially Generated Symbolic Forms

Money, law, offices, archives, languages, and institutional procedures occupy a hybrid category. A person can encounter them without a presently interacting individual, yet they remain products of collective history. They can orient behavior through rules, prices, permissions, prohibitions, records, and expectations.

This category demonstrates why the paper avoids the equation “non-interpersonal equals non-social.” A legal status can stabilize expectations without a judge standing nearby. Money can organize future action without a specific trading partner being present. A scientific archive can preserve a research trajectory after particular collaborators have disappeared. These are relationally active structures whose sociality is mediated rather than absent.

Latour’s analysis of heterogeneous networks is especially useful here because it refuses to treat objects and institutions as passive scenery (Latour 2005). Barad and Bennett likewise provide conceptual resources for distributed material participation (Barad 2007; Bennett 2010). The present paper remains more restricted: causal participation is relevant because it can help explain how a subject’s future actions remain connected to prior relations.

A Self-Sufficiency Thought Experiment

This section uses an intentionally unrealistic case to isolate current interpersonal dependence from other forms of dependence. The thought experiment is a variable-separation device rather than an anthropological proposal.

Consider an adult subject who has already acquired language, memory, technical knowledge, practical skills, and a stable capacity for action. Assume that this subject can independently reproduce all material goods required for continued life and activity, together with the tools necessary to reproduce those goods. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, energy, repair, and productive equipment can therefore be maintained without exchange with other persons.

The assumption is stronger than ordinary subsistence. If a tool breaks, the subject can produce its replacement; if replacement production requires another tool, that tool can also be reproduced. The thought experiment therefore removes a major practical reason for entering ongoing exchange relations.

Once this artificial condition is imposed, a narrower question becomes visible. Does the relational character of subjectivity logically entail continuing interpersonal interaction? The framework developed above suggests that the answer cannot be obtained merely by repeating that the subject is relational. The hypothetical subject could remain in durable relations with an environment, formal structures, animals, material practices, sacred figures, and inherited symbolic forms. These relations may continue to supply constraint, routine, feedback, historical depth, and future orientation.

The thought experiment has several explicit limits. The subject’s productive knowledge has a history. Language and concepts have a history. Mathematics, religious categories, medicine, agricultural practice, and technical skills have histories. The subject may also have been developmentally formed through early attachment and social interaction. Material self-sufficiency therefore leaves substantial social debt intact.

This remainder is philosophically useful. It allows three propositions to be held together:

1. human subjects can be socially formed and historically indebted;

2. a mature subject can have very low current interpersonal interaction;

3. some later dimensions of subjective continuity may be supported by non-interpersonal relations.

The thought experiment therefore weakens a particular inference rather than the claim of human sociality itself. Social genesis does not automatically determine the ontological type of every later relation that contributes to continuity.

Social Density, Relational Density, and Solitude

This section develops a distinction with direct consequences for everyday and academic interpretations of lives with sparse interpersonal contact.

Density Measures

Social density refers here to the frequency, number, and immediacy of interpersonal interactions. Relational density refers more broadly to the number and depth of relations that actively organize a subject’s attention, action, memory, expectation, and commitments. The two measures can vary independently.

A person in a crowded workplace may experience many interactions whose history is thin and whose demands change rapidly. Another person may spend most of the day alone while maintaining long relations with a research problem, landscape, ritual practice, animal, craft, or body of texts. The second life can therefore have low interpersonal density and high relational depth.

Solitude and Loneliness

Psychological research gives empirical support to the conceptual distinction between being alone and being lonely. Long and Averill describe potentially positive dimensions of solitude (Long and Averill 2003). Thomas and Azmitia show that the motivation for solitude matters, with self-determined and non-self-determined solitude displaying different correlates (Thomas and Azmitia 2019). Nguyen, Ryan, and Deci demonstrate that solitude can alter affective arousal and that its effects cannot be reduced to a uniformly negative state (Nguyen, Ryan, and Deci 2018). Later work documents varied meanings and benefits of solitude across the lifespan (Weinstein, Nguyen, and Hansen 2021).

These findings do not make solitude inherently beneficial. They make a narrower inference unsafe: sparse visible social interaction cannot by itself establish loneliness, relational poverty, or subjective instability.

Epistemic Caution in External Judgment

The distinction matters ethically. Observers often infer a person’s inner state from the visible number of social contacts. A mathematician working alone, a religious practitioner living in a temple, or a person spending long periods by the sea can be described as “lonely” before their lived relational world has been investigated.

Such judgments can impose a social norm as if it were a phenomenological fact. The appropriate stance is epistemic caution. The person may indeed be lonely. The person may also inhabit a dense relational field whose principal anchors are not immediately interpersonal. The category should therefore be supported by the subject’s experience and relevant contextual evidence rather than inferred from interpersonal frequency alone.

The Special Value of Interpersonal Relations

A distinction between density measures should not flatten the distinctive value of interpersonal relations. Human others can recognize claims, reinterpret history, share responsibility, offer care, challenge self-deception, and create joint projects. These capacities produce forms of mutuality that a theorem, landscape, or artifact cannot reproduce.

The conceptual point concerns inference, not equivalence. High social density is neither a sufficient measure of relational richness nor a sufficient measure of subjective stability. Low social density is neither a sufficient measure of loneliness nor a sufficient measure of relational poverty.

Relational Stabilization and Volatility

This section develops the paper’s main dynamic hypothesis. Relations sought for stabilization can become sources of instability when the relevant feedback is highly volatile and the subject’s self-organization depends strongly on that feedback.

External Calibration

Interpersonal relations can provide powerful forms of calibration. Praise, criticism, affection, rejection, trust, disappointment, role assignment, and recognition all alter how a person interprets self and situation. Stable social relations can therefore anchor subjectivity through shared history and dependable expectations.

The same mechanism can become volatile. New relationships introduce new standards, identities, obligations, and interpretive frames. A subject who repeatedly reorganizes self-understanding around rapidly changing external judgment may experience substantial instability even while social contact increases.

A Stabilization Loop

A provisional feedback pattern can be described in ordinary causal terms. A subject experiences weak continuity or uncertainty, seeks additional relations for confirmation, encounters new and variable evaluations, modifies self- understanding to accommodate them, and becomes more dependent on further confirmation. The resulting loop can intensify when relationships are brief, highly evaluative, or difficult to predict.

The paper calls this possibility a relational stabilization trap. The term identifies a structural hypothesis rather than a diagnosis. It should not be applied to individuals without evidence.

Several conditions make the loop more plausible:

1. subjective self-evaluation is highly sensitive to external judgment;

2. relational partners or groups change frequently;

3. evaluative standards are inconsistent across settings;

4. the subject has few durable anchors whose response structure is comparatively stable;

5. entry into new relations is itself used as a strategy for repairing instability.

Stable Generation

The alternative to volatility is not immobility. A stable relation can generate continuous change when its basic constraints remain learnable. A longstanding friendship can transform while preserving trust. A mathematical problem can produce new conceptual developments while retaining formal standards. A forest can vary seasonally while preserving learnable ecological regularities. A ritual practice can change a practitioner while retaining a recurring temporal form.

This distinction suggests that subjective stability may depend less on fixed content than on stable generative conditions. A subject can change substantially while remaining connected to durable relations whose histories make that change intelligible.

Relation Count and Anchoring Capacity

Relation count and anchoring capacity should therefore be treated as separate variables. Many short relations can coexist with weak temporal anchoring. A small number of long relations can coexist with strong temporal organization. The reverse combinations are also possible.

This proposal resonates loosely with concerns about socially saturated identity in constructionist accounts (Gergen 1991), yet the present argument has a different focus. It does not diagnose multiplicity itself as pathological. It asks how the temporal structure and volatility of relations interact with the subject’s dependence on them for continuity.

Objections and Boundary Conditions

This section addresses the strongest objections to the proposed widening of the relational field. The objections help define what the paper can responsibly claim.

Hidden Social Mediation

A first objection holds that apparently non-interpersonal relations are saturated with social history. Mathematics is inherited from communities. Religious practice is transmitted through traditions. A cultivated landscape may embody law, property, technology, and prior labor. Even the categories through which a subject identifies a “forest” or a “proof” are linguistically mediated.

The objection is correct as far as it goes. The paper therefore distinguishes historical social mediation from current interpersonal interaction. A relation can be socially generated and presently non-interpersonal at the same time. The claim of plural relational support concerns the latter structure and does not erase the former history.

Substitution and Supplementation

A second objection interprets the argument as a substitution thesis: if a forest, proof, or deity can support continuity, interpersonal relations become optional. The present paper does not establish that conclusion. Different relations support different dimensions of subjectivity. Legal recognition, mutual care, reciprocal interpretation, erotic intimacy, shared political agency, and collective responsibility have specifically interpersonal or institutional structures.

The safer formulation is supplementation. Non-interpersonal relations may supplement, redistribute, or partially carry functions involved in practical and temporal continuity. Whether a particular life can flourish with very sparse interpersonal contact is an empirical and normative question beyond the present argument.

Projection and Pseudo-Relation

A third objection concerns projection. A person may attribute responses to an object that simply reflect the person’s own wishes. This concern is especially salient for sacred relations and anthropomorphic interpretations of nature.

The framework responds by emphasizing alterity and constraint. A relation offers less independent anchoring when every response can be rewritten at will. Formal proof, material resistance, biological behavior, and recurrent environmental processes can limit projection through observable constraint. Sacred relations require more careful analysis because perceived response may depend on tradition, interpretation, ritual authority, and personal experience. The paper therefore avoids treating every felt relation as equally independent or epistemically reliable.

Reciprocity and Recognition

A fourth objection states that subjective continuity depends on reciprocal recognition, and non-interpersonal relations cannot supply it. This objection is powerful for socially recognized identity and moral status. A theorem cannot recognize rights. A forest cannot apologize. An artifact cannot jointly renegotiate a norm.

The paper accepts this asymmetry and narrows the thesis accordingly. Reciprocal recognition is one relation-specific mechanism. Practical continuity may also be supported by nonreciprocal constraint, routine, skill, normativity, or temporal orientation. The existence of these mechanisms does not reduce the importance of recognition where recognition is constitutively required.

Developmental and Clinical Evidence

A fifth objection appeals to the extensive evidence on attachment, social needs, loneliness, and health. Such evidence should constrain any philosophical account of human relationality (Bowlby 1969; Baumeister and Leary 1995; Coan and Sbarra 2015; Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015).

The paper’s response is scope limitation. The thought experiment concerns an already formed adult and does not model infancy, developmental deprivation, clinical isolation, or population-level health. A philosophical possibility claim about partial relational support cannot override evidence concerning the risks of involuntary social disconnection.

Cultural Variation

A sixth objection concerns cultural assumptions. Concepts of self, solitude, religion, nature, and interpersonal obligation vary across traditions. A model that begins from an autonomous Western individual and then adds relations would misdescribe many forms of life.

The framework avoids treating autonomy as the baseline ontology. It begins from relational embeddedness and asks how different kinds of relations participate in continuity. Even so, the examples and terminology remain culturally situated. Comparative work is required before broader claims can be made.

Normative Adequacy

A final objection distinguishes stability from goodness. A subject can be stably anchored in destructive practices, rigid ideologies, exploitative institutions, or harmful sacred interpretations. Durability and consistency can preserve pathology as easily as wisdom.

This objection is decisive against any equation of stability with flourishing. The present framework is descriptive and structural at this stage. A normative account would require additional criteria concerning harm, autonomy, reciprocity, justice, revisability, and the effects of a relation on other persons and systems.

Social Embeddedness and Interpersonal Dependence

This section consolidates the argument by locating interpersonal relations within a wider map of social and relational dependence.

Nested Relations

The paper’s distinctions can be represented conceptually as nested but non-identical domains. Interpersonal relations form one important subset of social relations. Social relations form one important subset of the wider field of relations through which an embodied subject engages a world. The boundaries are porous because many non-interpersonal relations carry social histories.

This nesting helps explain a common configuration: low interpersonal density, high social dependence, and high non-interpersonal relational density. A researcher can work alone while relying on universities, archives, languages, mathematics, energy infrastructure, and collective knowledge. A religious hermit can have minimal daily contact while inhabiting a tradition transmitted through texts, architecture, ritual, and institutions.

Sociality as a Major Condition

The claim that sociality is “one condition” of subjectivity should be understood carefully. It does not imply that sociality has a minor weight. Sociality may be foundational for language acquisition, normative development, attachment, political standing, and access to material resources. In many lives it may also remain the dominant source of emotional regulation and identity.

The proposed conceptual revision concerns exhaustiveness. Sociality need not exhaust every relation through which a mature subject remains practically and temporally organized. A theory of subjectivity can therefore assign great weight to social relations without turning interpersonal recognition into the only possible medium of continuity.

A More Precise Formulation

The paper’s position can be summarized through four propositions:

1. Human subjects are ordinarily formed within social and material worlds.

2. Interpersonal recognition contributes distinctively to important forms of self-relation, status, belonging, and flourishing.

3. Current interpersonal density is not a complete measure of relational density or subjective continuity.

4. Some non-interpersonal relations may contribute to the maintenance and development of an already formed subject through durable constraint, learnable feedback, historical depth, and orientation.

These propositions preserve the classical insight that human life is social while resisting an unnecessary reduction of relational subjectivity to ongoing interpersonal contact alone.

Implications for Further Inquiry

This section translates the conceptual distinctions into a research program. The paper itself remains philosophical, while several claims can be made more precise through empirical and comparative work.

Measurement of Relational Profiles

Existing measures often count social contacts, loneliness, network size, or perceived support. A relational-profile approach would additionally examine the durability, consistency, learnability, alterity, historical depth, and orienting capacity of a person’s major relations. Such measures should preserve relation type rather than aggregating all anchors into a single score.

A research design could compare lives with similar interpersonal density and different non-interpersonal relational structures. Examples might include research-intensive scholars, monastic practitioners, sailors, conservation workers, artists, craftspeople, and people engaged in long-term caregiving for animals or landscapes. The relevant outcome would extend beyond loneliness to include temporal coherence, project persistence, self-regulation, identity stability, and adaptive flexibility.

Longitudinal Analysis

The theory is fundamentally temporal. Cross-sectional data cannot easily separate a stable anchor from a temporary preference. Longitudinal work could examine whether enduring relations predict continuity across transitions such as retirement, migration, bereavement, occupational change, or reduced social contact.

The direction of causation also requires attention. Stable subjects may be more capable of forming durable relations, while durable relations may support greater stability. Reciprocal causation is plausible.

Comparative Religious Research

Sacred relations require comparative work across traditions. Attachment-to-God research provides one established route (Kirkpatrick 1998; Granqvist 2020), while many traditions organize sacred relations through concepts that differ substantially from a personal deity. Buddhist, Daoist, Shinto, Hindu, Indigenous, and other practices may involve ancestors, places, ritual orders, cosmologies, or nonpersonal forms of transcendence. A general theory should not force these relations into a single Western attachment template.

Philosophy of Mathematics and Scientific Practice

The mathematician and theoretical physicist examples also require deeper work. A philosophy of mathematical practice could ask how objectivity, resistance, proof norms, and long-term problem structures contribute to the researcher’s self-organization. Historical case studies could examine notebooks, correspondence, and research trajectories without assuming that formal objects are literal persons or witnesses.

Environmental and Place Relations

Environmental psychology, ecological phenomenology, and anthropology can help clarify how places become durable components of identity and practical memory. The paper’s framework predicts that relational continuity should depend on learned regularities, repeated embodied engagement, and historical depth rather than on mere physical presence in a place.

Relational Volatility

The proposed stabilization trap is especially suitable for empirical testing. Research could distinguish the number of social relations from their turnover, evaluative variability, and continuity of norms. A central hypothesis is that high relational turnover can coexist with high social activity and low subjective anchoring. Such work would need careful controls for personality, socioeconomic conditions, mental health, culture, and life stage.

Normative Theory

A later normative theory would need to distinguish stable from good relations. Potential dimensions include autonomy, non-domination, mutuality, revisability, care, justice, ecological consequence, and the preservation of capacities for future relation. This paper does not supply that theory. It identifies the need for one once relational support is treated as plural.

Limits and Open Problems

This section records the principal limits of the inquiry. These limits are substantive parts of the argument rather than formal disclaimers.

First, the paper establishes no necessary or sufficient conditions for subjective continuity. The six relational dimensions are heuristic and may interact nonlinearly. Excessive consistency can become rigidity, and excessive alterity can become disorganization.

Second, the paper offers no developmental sufficiency thesis. Early attachment, language acquisition, social cognition, and normative development remain outside the thought experiment. Evidence concerning social deprivation and attachment must be taken seriously in any extension toward childhood.

Third, the paper does not equate subjective continuity with well-being. A person can remain coherent within harmful, authoritarian, or self-destructive relations. Normative adequacy requires independent criteria.

Fourth, the domains grouped as non-interpersonal remain ontologically diverse. Formal structures, animals, ecosystems, institutions, artifacts, and sacred figures cannot be treated as members of a single natural kind. Functional comparison should preserve those differences.

Fifth, sacred relations raise unresolved methodological questions. An observer’s phenomenological description, a believer’s theological account, and a psychologist’s attachment model may all describe different aspects of the same practice. The present paper does not provide a meta-framework for resolving conflicts among them.

Sixth, the idea of causal learnability requires refinement. A subject can learn a false causal model that nevertheless stabilizes behavior. Future work must separate subjective predictability from epistemic accuracy.

Seventh, the distinction between social and non-social relations becomes blurred in technologically mediated environments. Algorithms, artificial agents, institutions, archives, and infrastructures can respond dynamically while embodying decisions made by many people. These hybrid relations deserve separate analysis.

Eighth, the stabilization-trap hypothesis is currently conceptual. It should not be treated as a clinical category or used to pathologize socially active persons. Empirical validation would require longitudinal and context-sensitive designs.

Finally, the paper’s language remains shaped by philosophical traditions in which “subject,” “self,” “recognition,” and “relation” carry contested histories. Comparative philosophical work may require different conceptual starting points rather than translation into this vocabulary.

Conclusion

This paper has examined a limited inference within relational accounts of subjectivity. Human beings can be socially formed, materially dependent, politically embedded, and strongly motivated toward interpersonal attachment while the later relations supporting subjective continuity remain plural in type.

The argument began by separating minimal experiential selfhood, practical and narrative continuity, socially recognized identity, and social-material embeddedness. It then separated subject formation from maintenance and development. These distinctions allowed evidence for sociality to retain its full force without making that evidence answer a different question by default.

The related literature reveals a productive tension. Recognition theory, attachment research, belongingness theory, social baseline theory, and health research establish the importance of social bonds. Phenomenology, dialogical philosophy, enactivism, extended cognition, nonhuman agency, solitude research, and religious-attachment research widen the range of relations that can have constitutive or regulatory consequences. None of these traditions alone proves that non-interpersonal relations can sustain a subject. Together they make the question philosophically serious.

The paper proposed a provisional vocabulary of relational attestation and anchoring. Durability, structural consistency, causal learnability, alterity, historical depth, and normative or practical orientation were introduced as dimensions through which a relation may contribute to temporal organization. Mathematical inquiry, environments, nonhuman living beings, sacred relations, material practices, and socially generated symbolic forms illustrated different combinations of these dimensions.

The self-sufficiency thought experiment clarified the boundary of the claim. Even a materially self-sufficient adult would remain historically and epistemically indebted to social worlds. The experiment therefore provides no basis for abandoning the description of humans as social beings. Its value lies in showing that social embeddedness and ongoing interpersonal dependence are distinct questions.

A further implication concerns solitude. Low interpersonal density does not by itself establish loneliness, relational poverty, or unstable subjectivity. The appropriate inquiry concerns the structure of the person’s actual relational world, including whether it contains durable, learnable, alteric, and meaningful anchors. This point supports epistemic caution toward mathematicians, theoretical researchers, religious practitioners, artists, and people whose lives are deeply organized around places, living beings, or practices that outsiders may fail to recognize as relationships.

The resulting position remains intentionally modest. Interpersonal relations retain distinctive powers of reciprocity, care, recognition, shared norm formation, and political membership. Non-interpersonal relations may support other dimensions of continuity through different mechanisms. A mature theory of subjectivity should therefore ask not only how many social relations a person has, but which relations actually participate in the ongoing generation of a life and how those relations remain stable enough to carry change through time.

Adams, Mark, and Netta Weinstein. 2024. “Need Satisfaction in Daily Well-Being: Both Social and Solitude Contexts Contribute to Well-Being.” British Journal of Social Psychology 63 (4): 1986–2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12769.

Aristotle. 1998. Politics. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128.

Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391623.

Bowlby, John. 1969. Attachment and Loss, Volume 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Buber, Martin. 1970. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Scribner.

Clark, Andy, and David Chalmers. 1998. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58 (1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8284.00096.

Coan, James A., and David A. Sbarra. 2015. “Social Baseline Theory: The Social Regulation of Risk and Effort.” Current Opinion in Psychology 1: 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.021.

Gergen, Kenneth J. 1991. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books.

Granqvist, Pehr. 2020. Attachment in Religion and Spirituality: A Wider View. New York: Guilford Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, Mark Baker, Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson. 2015. “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (2): 227–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352.

Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, and J. Bradley Layton. 2010. “Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review.” PLoS Medicine 7 (7): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.

Honneth, Axel. 1996. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kirkpatrick, Lee A. 1998. “God as a Substitute Attachment Figure: A Longitudinal Study of Adult Attachment Style and Religious Change in College Students.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (9): 961–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249004.

Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1997. “Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies.” Theory, Culture & Society 14 (4): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001.

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001.

Long, Christopher R., and James R. Averill. 2003. “Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 33 (1): 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00204.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nguyen, Thuy-vy T., Richard M. Ryan, and Edward L. Deci. 2018. “Solitude as an Approach to Affective Self-Regulation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44 (1): 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733073.

Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019824908X.001.0001.

Proshansky, Harold M., Abbe K. Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff. 1983. “Place-Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (1): 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1992. Oneself as Another. Translated by Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226844541.001.0001.

Scannell, Leila, and Robert Gifford. 2010. “Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006.

Schechtman, Marya. 1996. The Constitution of Selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Strawson, Galen. 2004. “Against Narrativity.” Ratio 17 (4): 428–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00264.x.

Thomas, Virginia, and Margarita Azmitia. 2019. “Motivation Matters: Development and Validation of the Motivation for Solitude Scale–Short Form (MSS-SF).” Journal of Adolescence 70: 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.004.

Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001.

Walsh, Froma. 2009. “Human-Animal Bonds i: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals.” Family Process 48 (4): 462–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Weinstein, Netta, Thuy-vy Nguyen, and Heather Hansen. 2021. “What Time Alone Offers: Narratives of Solitude from Adolescence to Older Adulthood.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 714518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714518.

Zahavi, Dan. 2005. Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6541.001.0001.

Zank, Michael, and Zachary Braiterman. 2026. “Martin Buber.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, Summer 2026. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2026/entries/buber/.