Using Coherence and Integrity: A Relational Guide to Theory and Dialogue

In the previous post, we distinguished between coherence (the internal consistency of a construal) and integrity (the structural viability of a system). Together, they help relational ontology avoid both dogma and incoherence — enabling it to evolve without collapsing.

But how do these concepts apply in practice?

This post outlines how coherence and integrity offer a disciplined approach to:

• Building theory

• Critiquing frameworks

• Engaging in interdisciplinary or cross-ontological dialogue

---

1. In Theory-Building: Honouring the System

When building theory, coherence is the local test — does this construal hang together? — while integrity is the systemic test — does this development preserve the viability of the system?

✳ Coherence asks:

• Are the distinctions clearly made?

• Are categories used consistently?

• Are the relations internally sound?

✳ Integrity asks:

• Does this development align with the system’s foundational commitments?

• Are the constraints being preserved or clarified?

• Does it open new space without destabilising what’s already viable?

💡 A clever construal is not enough. If it breaks the system’s internal logic, it violates integrity — even if it seems “insightful.”

For example, introducing essentialist categories into relational ontology may produce temporary coherence, but it violates integrity and weakens the entire system.

---

2. In Critique: Diagnosing the Faultline

Many academic critiques confuse inconsistency (a coherence issue) with systemic incompatibility (an integrity issue).

Relational ontology allows us to ask:

• Is this critique operating within the same system as the target theory?

• If not, does it acknowledge the difference in ontological commitments?

Instead of asking “Is this true?”, we ask:

• Is this construal coherent on its own terms?

• Does it violate the integrity of its own system?

• Does it misunderstand or misrepresent the integrity of the system it critiques?

💡 Relational critique doesn’t collapse systems — it reads them from the outside and clarifies where their coherence ends and their integrity breaks down.

This lets us avoid two common traps:

• Critiquing from nowhere (pretending not to be cutting)

• Co-opting from the inside (making incompatible moves within a system)

---

3. In Dialogue: Making the Cut Visible

Interdisciplinary or cross-paradigmatic dialogue often fails because participants assume coherence is enough — that if each position makes sense on its own terms, communication should succeed.

But from a relational perspective:

• Dialogue requires recognising that different ontologies have different systemic constraints.

• What counts as coherent in one may violate integrity in another.

• Translation is always a cut — not a neutral bridge.

Relational dialogue therefore requires:

• Ontological disclosure — making one’s systemic commitments visible

• Construal literacy — recognising the perspectival logic of the other

• Constraint humility — knowing what one’s own system cannot do

💡 Dialogue across systems is not consensus-seeking; it’s contrastive understanding. It clarifies where systems diverge, not where they overlap.

---

Conclusion: Thinking Responsibly, Not Just Clearly

Clarity without commitment is not enough. Theories can be internally coherent and still hollow — or dangerously extractive. Coherence becomes meaningful only when it is rooted in the integrity of a system.

In relational ontology, this means every theoretical move must be:

• Coherent in its own terms

• Consonant with the ontology’s constraints

• Conscious of the cuts it makes

This is how we think responsibly — not just clearly. It is how we build, critique, and collaborate without collapsing into contradiction or colonisation.