This understanding of reality as relational implies that in conflicts, no single party holds objective authority. Instead, acknowledging others’ experiences as equally valid parts of reality, rather than invalidating one’s own, is crucial for resolution. Barrett encourages curiosity and humility to expand our access to different facets of reality, advocating for experiencing as many perspectives as possible to combat ignorance.

For as long as humans have possessed the gift of language, they have grappled with the elusive nature of reality. Is it a fixed, objective canvas existing independently of us, which we perceive with varying degrees of accuracy? Or is reality a purely internal construct, a phantasmagoria spun entirely within our minds? This ancient philosophical debate, traditionally framed as a stark dichotomy between objective and subjective, may be asking the wrong question entirely. According to Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, a distinguished professor of psychology at Northeastern University, the answer lies not in either extreme, but in a dynamic interplay: reality is fundamentally relational.

Imagine a scenario: You’re in a therapist’s office, expressing intense anger. Your therapist, however, observes you and suggests you’re actually experiencing sadness. Who is right? In the traditional view, one of you would be correct, or perhaps both would be wrong, because there’s an objective truth to your emotional state. But Dr. Barrett argues that this perspective misses a crucial point. “Reality is not purely objective, and it’s not purely subjective,” she explains. “It is relational. There is one reality that is perspective-dependent.” In this moment, your experience of anger and your therapist’s experience of you as sad together constitute the reality of the situation. Neither is wholly right or wrong in isolation; their interaction defines the truth.

Dr. Barrett’s groundbreaking work suggests that everything we experience is a seamless blend of our “remembered past” and the “sensory present.” Our brains are not passive receivers of external data; rather, they are active predictors. They constantly use past experiences, memories, and learned patterns to anticipate the incoming sensory signals from the world – the light hitting our retinas, the vibrations reaching our cochlea, the pressures on our skin receptors.

This intricate process means that reality isn’t “out there” waiting to be discovered in a pristine, untouched form, nor is it merely a figment of our imagination. It’s a co-creation. “Reality exists,” Dr. Barrett posits, “but it exists in relation to you.” Our internal model, built from a lifetime of experiences, acts as a filter and an interpreter, shaping the raw sensory data into a coherent experience.

This concept is further elucidated by what Dr. Barrett terms the “perception box.” This isn’t a physical container, but a metaphorical framework that captures the intimate relationship between what’s inside our heads and what’s outside in the world. Our “perception box” represents the unique set of “ingredients” – our memories, biases, emotions, and learned associations – that each of us brings to the creation of the “relational present.” It’s the lens through which we process and make sense of the world, making our individual realities distinct yet interconnected.

The implications of relational realism are perhaps best illustrated by one of philosophy’s most enduring thought experiments: “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

The traditional, objective view would typically answer “yes.” A falling tree creates vibrations in the air, and those vibrations are, by definition, sound waves, regardless of whether an ear is present to detect them. However, a relational realist offers a profoundly different perspective.

“A falling tree will cause vibrations in the air,” Dr. Barrett acknowledges. “But there needs to be a set of receptors that detect those vibrations. And in order for it to be a sound of a tree falling, an organism has to know that that’s what those sounds mean.” Therefore, from a relational realist’s standpoint, “If there’s no organism there to detect the signals, then no, the tree does not make a sound.” The vibrations exist, but they are not sound until they are processed and interpreted by a nervous system capable of translating those specific signals into the experience we label “sound.”

This distinction highlights that reality is not just about raw physical phenomena, but about the interaction between those phenomena and a perceiving entity. What constitutes “sound” for a human is different from what constitutes “sound” for other species, precisely because their “perception boxes” are different.

Consider whales, for instance. The ocean is filled with vibration-based noise that remains undetectable and irrelevant to human senses. But for whales, equipped with vastly different sensory surfaces and brains, these vibrations are a crucial part of their reality. They detect these signals, interpret them, and use them for communication and navigation. Our human ignorance of this aspect of their reality can lead to our inadvertent interference with their ability to communicate, simply because we are unaware of the relational reality they inhabit.

The concept of relational reality extends far beyond philosophical debates and the acoustics of falling trees; it has profound implications for how we understand ourselves, others, and our interactions in the world.

Often, in the heat of an argument, we instinctively appeal to the authority of “objective reality” to assert that we are right. “This is just how it is!” we might exclaim, believing there’s an undeniable, external truth that validates our position. But if reality itself is relational, this tactic becomes untenable. “In order to resolve the conflict,” Dr. Barrett argues, “it means you have to admit the idea that somebody else’s experience has equivalent authority to your own.”

This isn’t to say that your experience is invalid. On the contrary, your experience is absolutely a part of reality. But it’s not the only part. Acknowledging relational reality means understanding that while some aspects of reality are shared, each of us has access to parts of reality that others do not. This perspective fosters empathy and humility, demanding that we consider and validate the experiences of others, even if they differ from our own.

The journey to a richer, more comprehensive understanding of reality is not about clinging to a singular, supposedly objective truth, nor is it about retreating into isolated subjective bubbles. Instead, it’s about active engagement and exploration.

If we primarily surround ourselves with people who mirror our own reactions and experiences, we merely reinforce the “remembered past” that is already easy for us to conjure. We stay within the comfortable confines of our existing “perception box.” However, if we cultivate curiosity – if we actively “forage for new sets of signals, new meanings” – we are far more likely to expand the aspects of reality to which we have access.

This expansion requires a dual commitment: to curiosity and to humility. It means being open to perspectives that challenge our own, seeking out diverse experiences, and acknowledging the limits of our individual understanding. As Dr. Barrett eloquently puts it, “As a person, I think it’s incumbent upon us, we really ought to experience as many aspects of reality as we can, otherwise we’re ignorant and ignorance is not helpful.”

Ultimately, understanding reality as relational moves us beyond simplistic binaries. It’s not about proving who is objectively right or wrong, but about acknowledging the dynamic, interwoven tapestry of existence that is co-created through our interactions with the world and each other. By embracing curiosity and humility, we don’t just expand our personal understanding; we contribute to a more nuanced, compassionate, and ultimately more truthful collective reality.

하지만 배럿 교수는 이러한 이분법적 사고방식에 의문을 제기합니다. 그녀에 따르면, 현실은 어느 한쪽에 치우쳐 있지 않습니다. 그녀는 “현실은 순전히 객관적이지도, 순전히 주관적이지도 않다. 현실은 관계적이다”라고 강조합니다. 즉, 하나의 현실은 관점에 따라 달라지는 ‘관점 의존적(perspective-dependent)‘이라는 것입니다. 내담자는 분노를 경험하고, 치료사는 내담자를 슬프다고 경험합니다. 이 두 가지 경험이 합쳐져 그 상황의 현실을 이룬다는 것이죠.

그녀는 이를 설명하기 위해 ‘지각 상자(perception box)‘라는 개념을 사용합니다. 지각 상자는 우리 머릿속에 있는 것과 세상 밖에 있는 것 사이의 관계를 포착하는 개념입니다. 이는 우리가 ‘관계적 현재(relational present)‘를 창조하는 데 필요한 재료, 즉 신호들을 의미합니다. 다시 말해, 현실은 우리 외부에 독립적으로 존재하지도 않고, 전적으로 우리 머릿속에만 있는 것도 아닙니다. 현실은 존재하지만, 그것은 ‘당신과의 관계 속에서(in relation to you)’ 존재한다는 것입니다.

나무가 쓰러지면 공기 중에 진동이 발생합니다. 관계적 현실주의자는 이 진동을 감지할 수용체(receptors)가 있어야 한다고 말합니다. 그리고 더 나아가, 그 진동이 ‘나무 쓰러지는 소리’라는 것을 아는 유기체가 있어야 비로소 소리가 됩니다. 따라서, 신호를 감지할 유기체가 없다면 나무는 소리를 내지 않는다고 주장합니다. 진동을 소리로 변환하는 데 필요한 다른 신호들이 요구된다는 것이죠.

이러한 관점은 종(種)마다 현실이 다르게 경험될 수 있음을 시사합니다. 예를 들어, 고래는 우리가 감지하지 못하는 바닷속의 수많은 진동 기반 소음을 감지합니다. 이 신호들은 고래의 감각 표면과 뇌 덕분에 고래의 관점에서 현실의 일부가 됩니다. 우리가 그들의 관점을 이해하지 못함으로써 그들의 소통 능력을 방해할 수도 있다는 것이죠.

갈등을 해결하기 위해서는 상대방의 경험 또한 자신의 경험과 동등한 권위를 갖는다는 사실을 인정해야 합니다. 다른 사람의 경험이 당신의 경험만큼이나 현실의 일부라는 생각은 당신의 경험을 무효화하지 않습니다. 단지 당신의 경험이 현실의 한 부분일 뿐, 유일한 부분이 아니라는 의미입니다.

우리가 공유하는 현실의 부분이 있는가 하면, 각자가 접근할 수 있는 현실의 부분이 있습니다. 만약 당신이 자신과 똑같은 반응과 경험을 가진 사람들과만 어울린다면, 당신은 쉽게 떠올릴 수 있는 ‘기억된 과거’를 계속해서 강화할 뿐입니다. 하지만 만약 당신이 호기심(curiosity)을 가지고 새로운 신호와 의미를 찾아 나선다면, 접근할 수 있는 현실의 측면이 크게 확장될 것입니다.

배럿 교수는 겸손(humility)과 호기심을 강조하며, 가능한 한 많은 현실의 측면을 경험하는 것이 우리에게 주어진 의무라고 말합니다. 그렇지 않으면 우리는 무지(ignorance)에 빠지게 되며, 무지는 결코 도움이 되지 않습니다. 이는 객관성과는 무관하며, 가능한 한 많은 현실을 경험할 수 있는 능력과 깊이 연결되어 있습니다. 관계적 현실을 이해하고 받아들이는 것은 단순히 세상을 이해하는 방식을 바꾸는 것을 넘어, 타인과의 관계를 개선하고 우리 자신의 경험을 더욱 풍부하게 만드는 중요한 열쇠가 될 것입니다.