ABSTRACT
This article explores the nature, meaning, and definition of “relatefulness” as a relational meditation practice.
I begin by exploring the potential value of clear definitions: When and why are they important? What do we gain by being clear? What do we lose?
I then review the ways relatefulness has been characterized so far, formally and informally, by facilitators who have written and spoken about it. I compare these characterizations with those of similar group and relational meditation practices, especially other schools of circling.
How is relatefulness similar to and different from these other practices? What implications does this have for teaching the practice, for the communities that spring up around it, and for the personal growth and development of individual practitioners? To what extent is the practice inseparable from the people doing it and the cultures they build around it?
I then revisit the potential advantages and disadvantages of providing clear definitions. Can we retard the practice by getting too attached to definitions? What role do definitions play at different stages of the practice? I examine some different potential definitions for different contexts: pedagogical, cultural, marketing, etc.
I end with several ideas for further discussion by those keen to understand and teach relatefulness.