• TRIMODAL-MARKET: The European software engineering pay landscape consists of three distinct tiers based on company benchmarking behaviors and business models.
• TIER-1-CHARACTERISTICS: Local companies and non-tech businesses treat engineering as a cost center, offering senior compensation between €50,000 and €75,000.
• TIER-2-CHARACTERISTICS: Regional competitors and high-growth startups benchmark against all local industries, typically providing senior total compensation from €75,000 to €125,000.
• TIER-3-CHARACTERISTICS: Big Tech firms and global trading companies benchmark internationally, with senior total compensation ranging from €125,000 to over €250,000.
• COMPENSATION-COMPONENTS: Higher tiers rely heavily on cash bonuses and equity, such as RSUs or options, which can fluctuate in value based on market performance.
• PERFORMANCE-INCENTIVES: Top-tier companies utilize outsized financial rewards and aggressive performance management to attract and retain high-leverage engineering talent.
• SILICON-VALLEY-IMPACT: US-based companies expanding into Europe and the shift toward remote work have significantly increased upward pressure on regional salary ceilings.
• HIRING-DYNAMICS: Achieving higher compensation requires navigating specialized technical interviews and accepting different levels of professional risk and work-life balance.

This article is part of a 3-part series on trimodal compensation:

• Part 1: The trimodal nature of software engineering salaries in the Netherlands and Europe (2021, this article)
• Part 2: The trimodal nature of tech compensation revisited (2024, this article)
• Part 3: The trimodal nature of tech compensation in the US, UK and India (2025)

Update: dozens of hiring managers confirmed this trimodal model applies to all global markets: from the US, through Asia to Latin America as well. Also see TechPays.com for data recorded for a growing number of countries in the three tiers.

(Watch this article as video narrated by me, with additional context)

I've been a hiring manager at Uber, in Amsterdam, for over 4 years. The market - and compensation - for software engineers have moved upwards at an incredible pace over during this time.

Interesting enough, many engineers did not notice any meaningful salary changes these years. The 2019 Honeypot Amsterdam developer survey says, "the most experienced developers earn an average of €55,000 high as over €70,000". The 2021 Talent.io salary report puts the most experienced software engineering salaries in Amsterdam at €60,000/year.

Meanwhile, I've observed the average senior total compensation figures at Uber nearly double from €110,000 in 2015 to €170,000-€230,000/year by 2020. It's not just Uber: <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a> senior total packages have gone up by 50% from around €100,000 in 2016 to €150,000+, as part of the EU salary research I've been running (I'll share the survey reports in-detail in later blog posts - subscribe here to not miss it).

Where is the disconnect?

Tiers of Companies

I'm seeing the software engineering compensation market becoming trimodal - split into three distinct groups that "spike" and that have little overlaps. Most engineers are not aware of this third, Big Tech pillar and the compensation ranges it introduces, assuming compensation can not go beyond what is offered at the second pillar:

There is no longer an "average" salary for software engineers in Europe / the Netherlands: just an average salary per one of the three, distinct categories. Which category does your workplace belong to?

You'll find little to no compensation data on this third pillar on likes of Glassdoor, Payscale, Honeypot, Talent.io, Stack Overflow Jobs and other public job or salary portals. For the US, the site Levels.fyi surfaces top tier companies; for Europe, TechPays.com – a site I'm building – showcases all three tiers, including this highest tier. This article also lists top tier companies across various European cities.

The range for #3 is almost entirely missing from most public salary data.

Here is the split of the three groups of companies, based on their compensation philosophy:

#1: Companies only benchmarking against their local competition and non-tech companies, competing with their local competitors. Most of these places call engineering as IT, and often view it as a cost center. Technology is not treated - or compensated - as a core competency at these companies. Examples would include IT teams for local supermarkets, or e-commerce sites and similar. They'd aim to pay right around or slightly above what the other local supermarkets, e-commerce sites and similar businesses pay.

Startups with little capital and bootstrapped companies might fall in this category. In the Netherlands, these companies would pay €50,000-75,000/year for a senior engineering role in the Netherlands, everything included (apart from the hard-to-value early-stage startup equity). For an entry-level role, this number would be €25,000-40,000.

Most of these companies will pay a salary only: a fraction of them will have any bonus scheme in place. Those that have will typically cap bonuses at 10% of the annual salary, and tie it to company performance. Engineers don't receive any equity - save for, perhaps, lead or principal positions in rare cases, and very little.

#2: Companies benchmarking against all local companies, even if they are not direct competitors. In the Netherlands, examples of these companies would be eBay classifieds, Adyen, Nike, Disney Streaming, and well-funded, high-growth startups like Catawiki, FindHotel, Miro, MessageBird, TripActions would also be in this category.

These companies would typically pay €75,000-125,000 total compensation (base salary + bonus + equity) for a senior engineering role in the Netherlands. For an entry-level role, this number would be €40,000-65,000.

Most of these companies will have a bonus scheme in place that pays up to 20% of the base salary in cash, and many offer equity to more senior engineers. Only a smaller portion of this category offer meaningful equity to all engineers, though.

#3: Big Tech: companies benchmarking against all regional or global companies. In Europe, this means competing against all other major EU companies, and often recruiting people from London, Berlin, Barcelona, and outside the EU. Examples of companies in this space are Uber, <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a>, Databricks, Amazon, Flexport, Plaid, Redis Labs, Stripe, Elastic, GitLab, GitHub, Datadog, Apple, or Netflix. Trading companies like IMC Financial, Optiver, Flow Traders or Jump Trading are in this group as well. Brexit should bring a lot more positions to the Netherlands for trading firms.

For a longer list of top-of-the-market companies and finding these, see my subscriber-only article Finding the Next Company to Work At, and in Compensation at publicly traded tech companies.

As an interesting data point, <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a> is the only non-US tech company in this group who has been keeping up with the market changes compensation-wise, competing with Silicon Valley companies from their Amsterdam HQ. Other European companies targeting the global markets would be wise to take note - and hold on to their key people.

These companies would typically pay €125,000-250,000+ total compensation for a senior engineering role in the Netherlands (meaning base salary + bonus + equity value: either liquid or paper-value: this would be up to around $300K/year in dollar value). All companies would offer a cash bonus and equity scheme for all engineers - even entry-level ones -: cash bonuses often going to 40-50% of the base salary for top performers, and equity sometimes accounting for more than the base salary for senior folks and high-performers. The exception to this is trading companies: they will not offer equity, but year-end cash bonuses will be 50-150% of the base salary.

For example, at Uber a typical senior engineer offer was around €175K/year total compensation: €115K salary, €20K bonus target and about €50K/year equity vesting - around 4,800 RSUs for vesting over 4 years, with a 1-year cliff). With equity appreciation, the total compensation value could go higher, as would with outsized rewards for top performers.

For an entry-level role, this number would be €65,000-100,000. For example, at Uber, a standard new grad offer was around €87,000 in 2020 (€70,000 salary + €7,000 target bonus + €10,000/year in stock). An engineer with a few years experience hired at the entry level could make above €100,000 in their first year, though. For example, at Uber, one of the Eng1/L3 engineers made €103,000 in their first year (€77,000 salary + €11,000 actual bonus + €15,000 in stock for their first year). Obviously, all of these Uber numbers are outdated: as the market changes, so will those figures.

Most engineers making outsized compensation in Europe have done so by taking a moderate risk on a high-growth, road-to-public company, joining before the IPO, and negotiating for equity. I know engineers at Uber, Datadog, Airbnb and Doordash who have seen great rewards for joining before going public was a "done deal". As time progresses, people working at companies that award large stock packages, and with stocks that see strong stock growth are also often in these positions.

What this means is both a new grad and a senior software engineer could be making up to 4x the annual compensation, depending on what company they are working at. Of course, there are overall fewer openings at Big Tech, and the competition and expectations are more fierce. Still, putting in the time to prepare for these interviews might make sense, knowing the difference in compensation.

Most companies tend to assume they are a tier higher than they actually are - because they have little data points that prove otherwise. Candidates keep accepting their current offers, that have not changed significantly the past years, and attrition remains as usual. However, many of these companies will be in for a surprise the coming years as the #3 category of companies hires the best talent away from #2. In turn, this will push #2 to increase compensation and equity allocation, and hire the best people from #2 and #1. And companies in #2 who do not offer meaningful equity for software engineers on top of a competitive salary will struggle to recruit anyone from #3.

If you're responsible for compensation planning, read more on the 🔒 reality of the 2021-2022 tech hiring market in this subscriber-only article that goes into what companies are doing who are hiring in this heated market. Also, follow my 🔒 The Scoop series which covers market changes and shares advice for hiring managers.

The Silicon Valley-Effect Pulling the Top of The Market

The top of the market has accelerated rapidly in the Netherlands, the past 5 years. In 2015, <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a> was the highest-paying employer across Amsterdam - and the Netherlands. Then, Uber opened an office. At first, Uber paid similar to <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a> - though more generous on options, and later with double-trigger RSUs. However, Uber soon stopped competing "just" locally.

Between 2016-2018, Uber re-benchmarked its compensation model to go head-on-head with the highest-paying tech companies in Europe: Facebook in London, Google in Zurich, Twitter in Dublin, and similar organizations.

The updated Uber compensation packages in 2018 were pretty much identical to that of Facebook London. This was no mistake: during these times, many candidates had offers both from us, and from Facebook or Google. I'd like to take credit for convincing people with Facebook/Google offers to choose my team: but without a compensation package that was competitive, all my efforts would have been worth nothing.

Silicon Valley companies opening EU offices have been a huge source of moving the market upwards - and swinging the balance back a little bit towards Europe / The Netherlands. The total compensation packages in the US have been shockingly high from the perspective of EU software engineers: and many engineers from the EU have packed up and left, seeing the wide gap.

An example is a Dutch engineer I know leaving their €80,000/year ($94,000) job in the Netherlands for an initially $350,000/year position at Lyft. Following promotions, they are now making more than $450,000/year (€378,000/year). Yes, healthcare and the cost of living are more expensive in the US: but this person has told me their only regret is they had to leave home to get paid their worth.

Newsletter

Enjoying this article? Subscribe to my newsletter to get issues like this in your inbox. It's a good read and the #1 technology newsletter on Substack.

Imaginary Money that Turns Into Real Money

Many engineers are hesitant to join companies that give out equity like double-trigger RSUs, options, SARs or others, but are not public.

However, imaginary money usually comes at a discount, and offered in larger amounts to offset the risk of people joining earlier. I benefitted from taking a risk at Uber. I joined in 2016, and I only had imaginary money up to the 2019 IPO. Then, all that imaginary money converted to a large amount of real money. People joining after the IPO got half or less the stock units than people joining beforehand: there was no risk to be compensated for, any more.

Databricks, Flexport, Miro, Messagebird and other fast-growth companies are all similar stories. There is a chance these companies won't IPO: just like there was the chance that Uber would not. They also offer stock more generously then they would, after a successful IPO. Look into understanding the money markets, the current and past IPO trends and make your own decisions. I was cautiously certain that Uber would have an IPO within a few years of joining given the investor pressure building up: some of my friends thought I was being reckless in joining a company that offered imaginary money at large.

There are also early-stage, high-growth startups that are promising, and employee equity they award can turn into big gains on an exit years down the line. Craft, Fonoa, Linear, Payaut, FindHotel and others are examples of these places. Yes, there are are cautionary examples of how things can go wrong as well. Use your own judgement, risk-assesment and how much you believe in the company's mission and trajectory.

After a company goes public, equity compensation tends to drop, while competition to get into those places becomes more intense. A person who works at Opendoor shared how right after their IPO, the number and quality of applicants have skyrocketed - which is an all too typical story. These companies still pay well, but will not pay any premium for a pre-IPO risk, and if you apply, you'll have far more competition to stand out from and you'll need to prepare more for the coding and systems design interviews.

Equity, IPOs and The Impact on Compensation

Much of the high total compensation numbers are linked to equity that software engineers receive. Publicly traded companies that compete globally issue high equity packages. Unicorns and decacorns competing for the same engineers often issue large private equity packages for employees.

This equity can become very valuable on a successful IPO - but is not guaranteed to do so thanks to the nature of equity:

The value of private equity for software engineers. Following a successful IPO, the total compensation of engineers can jump significantly. It all depends how much stock you have, if, when and how the IPO goes, and how the stock does afterwards.

Databricks, Flexport, Miro, MessageBird, and other companies with large Amsterdam offices are all ones that are expected to go public in the next few years. An engineer who joined Databricks in late 2018 has $6M worth of stock - on paper, that is. Joining rapidly growing companies that offer strong equity packages can increase your compensation significantly.

Risk, rewards, and luck often go hand in hand with engineering compensation on the high end. The higher the ration of equity in your compensation, the higher gains - or losses - you can see with the equity price going up or down.

For example, Uber was not always considered as the top of the market for salaries in the Netherlands. In 2015, Uber paid in-line with <a href="http://Booking.com" rel="nofollow">Booking.com</a>, and it was uncertain if there would be an IPO in the foreseeable future. In 2017-2018, Uber started to issue larger packages, and the IPO timeline became more certain:

However, most Uber engineers would describe the IPO in 2019 as disappointing. Many engineers had RSUs issued at a $48 preferred price, Uber IPO'd at $45, and the stock traded at $30 when the lockup expired, and people could sell:

By the time Uber employees could sell equity in 2019, the stock was down from a $48 preferred RSU price to $30. The stock would trade as low as $21 in 2020, before bouncing back.

The total compensation number of anyone with Uber stocks would go down at this point. However, anyone lucky enough to join late 2019 or early 2020 was issued stock at a price that is less than half of where Uber is trading now - and they could now have a much higher total compensation than most employees in a similar role.

The highest compensation packages will also typically be the most volatile ones, value-wise. This is also why it's hard to answer how much an engineer working at the likes of Uber is earning. The base salary and bonus: those are easy to quantify. But the equity that can make up a major portion of your salary? It is much harder to predict.

Performance on the Job and Compensation

The Silicon-Valley mentality of paying high-leverage engineers very well does not stop at salaries. It also includes how bonuses, and equity refreshes are awarded.

At some companies, the top performers can be paid outsized bonuses and stock, in ways that push their compensation well above the next level. While working at Uber, I was lucky to have engineers who were perceived as top 1% or top 3% of engineers. Here's the type of rewards some people got at Uber Amsterdam:

• A €190,000 bonus at the end of the year: €50,000 in cash paid on the spot, and €140,000 in stock, vesting over 4 years, on a monthly basis. The target end of year bonus for this role would have been around €62,000 (€22,000 in cash and €40,000 in stock vesting over 4 years - this person got 2.5x the cash, and over 3x the equity target).
• A $80,000 spot bonus to be paid out in 4 instalments over 2 years ($20,000 every 6 months). This was on top of the "normal" bonuses.
• A $220,000 stock refresh award, vesting over 4 years to bring a person up to the range they should be, based on their performance. The usual stock refreshes for this role would have been around $50,000 every year.
• A €40,000 spot bonus vesting 12 months later, serving as a retention grant.
• 24% salary increase on promotion, taking performance into account. The usual increases were 10-15%, and depended on where the salary band of the person was.

At Uber, I've seen people who were a level below me, but still making more per year than I did, thanks to their outstanding performance, impact, and the bonus that followed. Some of these people were on my team - and I loved that the system allowed this difference. Because we could reward high performers disproportionately, these people did not even think of leaving. Why would they?

Thanks to this policy, as a manager, I was able to work with some of the best engineers throughout my career - for an extended period of time. Did I mention that over 4 years, no person who reported to me left Uber - up to the summer 2020 layoffs, that is? I'm sure it was not just compensation: but it sure played some part in this.

At companies who pay top of the market, people who are seen as key engineers often see outsized rewards, on top of the already great salary. And even the normal bonuses are what would be considered very large at #2 type of companies.

Outsized compensation and rewards also attracts really good talent - who you get to work with, if you also make it into the same company. I was lucky enough to work with - and learn from - engineers who have built the original PayPal payments system while working on Uber's payments system, read RFC comments on whether to use React Native from one of the first React Native core engineers who joined from Facebook, or get feedback on how not to mess up a big project from a manager who saw Google Plus fail first-hand.

COVID Tilting the Balance to the EU

COVID has also been a major boost for high-paying senior jobs. A growing number of EU software engineers are considering or have moved back to Europe. And more US companies realize they can hire cheap, but world-class software engineers in Europe.

A Dutch software engineer with 15 years of experience has joined a pre-IPO US company, working remotely to build large-scale distributed systems. They said:

I live in The Netherlands and in software development since 2000. I freelanced from 2008 to 2018. In 2018, I was recruited by {US startup acquired by a Big Tech company}, and boy, did a whole new world open for me. I'm moving into a new role at {Pre-IPO US company} Monday and my salary is roughly double (sometimes even triple) of what I could earn at the average enterprise or consultancy. And that's not even counting equity. At {US startup acquired by a Big Tech company}, I was a bit too late, but here, I'm in a good position. I should make enough to get rid of my mortgage, assuming a conservative IPO.

I learned more at three years of {US startup acquired by a Big Tech company} than in the 15 years before that. And the people I got to work with and are in my network now are invaluable.

COVID helped a lot too, IMO. Companies realised full remote is an option and you can increase your talent pool to include the entire planet.

I talked with the head of mobile engineering at a pre-IPO decacorn, who told me he's amazed he can hire staff-level engineers for $180,000/year (€150,000/year), who work extremely well, and on par with their Bay Area engineers who cost 2-3x this much, at $400-600,000/year. This organization is deciding which EU countries to open an office, the head of mobile already getting budget approval for a major hiring spree. The Netherlands is a front-runner for them.

Stripe and Spotify have both started to hire for permanent remote positions in Europe as well, expanding their hiring pool to all of the EU. Both companies are competing across Europe, and not with the local market. They join companies like GoDaddy, GitLab, GitHub, and others who have been doing this for years.

Getting Into Big Tech

The majority of companies in the Netherlands will fall into the #1 and #2 categories of companies aiming to compete only on the local market. Getting an offer from companies in the #1 category is usually the easiest, while #2 can be more challenging. However, the Big Tech companies in the #3 category are by far the most competitive ones to get into.

While #3 pays the most, it's also the most challenging to get into. I would know: I was a hiring manager here for years.

For any given position, there are usually so many applicants that you need to have a good and tailored resume to get through the resume screen - my first book helps with clearing this CV stage. The best advice? Get a referral if you can, and tailor your resume to the position you apply to.

For entry-level roles, you'll have to really prepare for the coding interview. Data structures, algorithms: the works. Like it or not, this a hoop that these companies will want all successful applicants to jump.

For senior and above positions, it gets trickier. You'll need to get good at large-scale systems design and have relevant experience for the type of work you'd do to get an offer at the senior engineering level. You'd have to have worked on similar systems before, often working at either another #3 company, or one of the better #2 ones.

For above senior positions, you'll only have a shot if you've solved similar-scale challenges to what these companies are doing, and have worked at comparable environments. You also need to be up-to-date with where the industry is at: may this be backend, web, mobile, or ML systems. Above senior positions are rare, and are almost looking for people who can have organization-wide impact on complex and impactful problems that is measured in the tens or hundreds of millions in users or revenue.

Many of the companies in #3 represent exciting professional challenges that companies in #1 or #2 do not have to offer. Even if it was not for the compensation, they might be worth exploring at some point during your professional career.

A resource that has helped people get into, and perform at expectations in Big Tech is my newsletter, The Pragmatic Engineer Newsletter. I cover topics relevant to software engineers and engineering managers at Big Tech and high-growth startups. Here are examples of what I write about. You can subscribe here for free.

Differences Between #1, #2 and #3 Outside Money

There is far more to what makes a good job than compensation. Places that offer high compensation usually mean higher competition to get in and stay on the job. It usually means unpaid oncall, often working with various timezones, and it can mean poor work-life balance compared to other places.

Work-life balance tends to be drastically better in the #1 category of local-only companies, compared to #2 and #3. In the Netherlands, the #1 companies places where it's common for the majority of the people to work less than 5 days a week, work to be steady and easy to plan, and work not starting betfore 9, or running beyond 5.

There tends to be little difference between #2 and #3 in terms of pace: they are both fast-moving, and often set high expectations for those who would like to perform well. A major difference is how many #2 places are in one timezone, and people can often disconnect in the evening hours. At global companies in #3, this is not always the case: at Uber, I would often have calls at 6pm or 7pm with teams in SF - which was in the morning their time. In turn, when working with US companies, people at #3 would sometimes start their day later.

Being warned, then let go when not performing at your expected level is by far the most likely to happen at #3. These places pay well not just because they can, but because they want high-performing teams - and people. If someone is not up to expectations, and does not improve despite direct feedback, they won't think too much about letting this person go, and hiring someone else who will do so. Compensation is also structured in a way to pay for performance - for example, all employees performing at expectations already get large cash and equity bonuses, while those who are below this bar can see their bonus hit zero. It goes the other way as well: people seen as top performers will get rewards and retainer bonuses unheard of outside the group of #3 companies.

Netflix is well-known for their "keeper test" and while working there comes with more cash than any other place will pay, getting fired is never far from anyone's mind. On the flip side, when working at a place like Netflix, you don't have to put up with people who are deliberately slacking or are pulling the team down: they won't be for the company for very long.

It's Not Just About Comp

Compensation is just one data point - though one that tends to have little transparency in Europe. I'll be publishing more detailed data points on this blog on the Netherlands, UK, Germany, and other EU countries' software engineering salary data that people have shared- and you can share as well.

Just make sure you're weighing not just the salary but other important things like professional growth, autonomy, mentorship, working directly on a product, work-life-balance and the things that matter to you:

Inspired by this visualization from @Lizandmollie

I'll follow up with more detailed compensation analysis for the Netherlands and Europe with numbers and company names - subscribe to my newsletter or follow me on Twitter to not miss it. If you work in tech, in the EU, please consider anonymously sharing salary data you are aware of via this form.

If you're responsible for compensation planning in the Netherlands, you might also want to read my article 🔒 The Perfect Storm Causing an Insane Tech Hiring Market.

Interested in more details? I made a video, sharing more of my thoughts on why a comparable software engineering position can pay very different.

Other models: in 2016 – 5 years before this article was published – software engineer Dan Luu published the article Is dev compensation bimodal? and came to the conclusion:

"if I had to guess, I'd say that while the dispersion in programmer compensation is increasing, it's not bimodal, but I don't really have the right data set to conclusively say anything."

Subscribe to my weekly newsletter to get articles like this in your inbox. It's a pretty good read - and the #1 tech newsletter on Substack.

Migration from California has helped change Colorado from a libertarian-inflected reddish state into a solid-blue one. And now blue Colorado is starting to turn into California.

The state’s remarkable demographic reversal provides the clearest evidence of this transformation. Recent Census numbers show Colorado losing more than 12,000 residents to other states last year, while its total population growth is anemic. The metro area of Denver, once a city with buzz as hot as Austin or Nashville, is now growing more slowly than Midwestern cities like Indianapolis and Columbus. The state’s labor force has also started shrinking—something the Denver Post notes has “never happened outside a severe recession or economic shock like the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Not so long ago, Colorado was one of America’s booming destinations. During the 1990s, its population grew by over 30 percent, adding more than 1 million residents. Between just 1990 and 1997, Colorado attracted nearly 110,000 migrants from California, about six times the number from any other state. The state also grew in the 2000s and 2010s.

One reason for this demographic decline may be another way in which Colorado is converging with California: high housing prices. Redfin ranks the state as the fourth-most expensive in which to buy a home. In the Denver market, the average family needs to spend more than six times its annual income to buy the average home. (A rule of thumb for affordability is to spend no more than three times your annual income.)

Weak demographics, a stagnant or declining labor force, and sky-high housing prices bode ill for the state’s ability to attract business. Colorado is not like New York City or San Francisco, elite global cities where workers will pay any price for access to agglomerations of high-value industries or the feeling of being at the center of the universe.

Instead, Colorado is shedding companies. TIAA is closing its large Denver office and moving 1,000 employees to Frisco, Texas. Call-center company TTEC has moved its headquarters from Colorado to Austin. Several other firms have implemented layoffs or chosen to expand elsewhere. The problem is so bad that the Colorado Chamber of Commerce now maintains a relocation tracker.

It’s hard to identify a single decision that caused these trends, but broadly speaking, California-style blue governance is the culprit.

Take infrastructure. Driven in part by a law mandating a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, the state has effectively abandoned building or expanding highways. Instead, it has poured cash into light rail and other forms of public transit. Unlike New York or Chicago, where public transit has historically played a major role, there’s little hope that light rail will serve the needs of a sprawling city like Denver. These rail investments are also a huge maintenance liability. Riders have already begun to experience the periodic slowdowns familiar to train riders in other cities with deferred maintenance issues.

Other California-style measures include an anti-gun law last year and a law limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—passed after the state had made national news with Venezuelan illegals engaging in gang activity. The legislature also tried to make it easier for unions to require compulsory representation payments from non-members. Governor Jared Polis vetoed it, but proponents plan to keep pushing for it.

Colorado has also started targeting politically unpopular people and businesses. In 2024, Denver considered a ballot initiative to force the closure of the city’s lone meatpacking plant. The measure failed, but only after opponents spent $2.4 million to defeat it. Targeting specific businesses for elimination speaks poorly of the city’s business climate, as does the now-infamous litigation against Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to create cakes with messages that violated the conscience of its owner.

With its top-quality natural amenities and highly educated workforce, Colorado won’t collapse anytime soon. And it hasn’t reached California’s level of crazy—yet.

But Colorado has become a cautionary tale of what happens when Democrats and Golden State refugees capture a state’s politics. The high housing prices, demographic stagnation, and business weakness in California are not accidents—they are the consequences of a political culture that produces similar results wherever it takes hold.

Photo by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images

• Judicial Tension: The Supreme Court recently issued a decision that invalidated the legal rationale for the current administration's tariff policies.
• Historical Precedent: Republican leadership attributes their 2018 Senate gains to voter backlash against the contentious confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• Retirement Speculation: Justice Samuel Alito, currently 75 years old, is the subject of rumors regarding a potential departure from the bench after twenty years of service.
• Diminishing Influence: Internal court data indicates Alito authored the fewest leading opinions this term, suggesting a possible decline in his relative standing among the conservative bloc.
• External Pressures: Public scrutiny regarding ethics and personal political expressions by the Alito family has increased the perceived likelihood of a voluntary resignation.
• Strategic Timing: Analysts point to the October 2026 release date of Alito’s upcoming book as a potential indicator of his plan to leave the court before the next term.
• Succession Planning: Conservatives may seek a retirement while they hold a Senate majority to ensure the seat is filled by a younger jurist with similar ideological views.
• Political Impact: A Supreme Court vacancy during a midterm year could serve as a primary mobilization tool for both parties, regardless of the ultimate electoral outcome.

 ![](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/712/68f/c34a86c6841c9801212c5e55f5fb495b8c-alito-age.rsquare.w400.jpg)

Photo: Chip Somodevilla//Getty Images

This week, there’s been a lot of attention focused on the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to its stunning decision blowing up the rationale for Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. In his bitter remarks about the decision, the president went out of his way to praise dissenters Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.

It’s Alito who could make some additional political news later this year. To understand why, you must step back to 2018, when Trump faced his first midterm election as president and the dynamics looked grim. He had lost the popular vote in 2016. His job-approval ratings had been underwater from the second week of his term in office. One of his two big first-term initiatives, legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, had ended in dismal failure. And unsurprisingly, his party wound up losing 40 net U.S. House seats and control of that chamber.

But at the same time, Republicans actually posted a net gain of two U.S. Senate seats and increased their majority from a fragile 51-to-49 margin to a more robust 53 to 47. Why? Well, according to many GOP spin-meisters, it was to a significant degree owing to “Kavanaugh’s revenge,” as CNBC reported at the time:

Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., both credited the so-called Kavanaugh effect for Republican victories in key Senate races against red-state Democrats.

Graham, in a thread of tweets Wednesday morning, said that the constituents of those Democratic incumbents who voted against Kavanaugh “held them responsible for being part of a despicable smear campaign orchestrated by the left.”

The ”#KavanaughEffect,” Graham said, should be renamed ”#KavanaughsRevenge” …

Republicans in critical states for the party were “highly offended” by the Democrats’ conduct during the confirmation proceedings, McConnell said, and the fallout from the process acted “like an adrenaline shot” for GOP turnout.

Graham, as you may recall from his feral attacks on Senate Democrats during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, chaired the Judiciary Committee during that confirmation fight and contended that accusations of sexual assault against the soon-to-be Justice were blatantly unfair — nay, villainous. So it was natural for him to claim the hearings enraged both Republicans and swing voters and saved the Senate (an interpretation that also inflated his own importance, as it happens).

It was a dubious interpretation of the midterms at the time, but the important thing is that many Republicans believed it. And that could feed a parallel development going into the 2026 midterms: a possible retirement by Kavanaugh’s senior and very right-wing colleague Samuel Alito.

Alito has been on retirement watch for a while now. He’s 75 years old (and will turn 76 on April 1) and recently celebrated 20 years on the Supreme Court. And as the intrepid Court watcher Joan Biskupic noted in 2024 after he twice lost an initial majority on a case, Alito’s influence within the Court has been slipping, leaving him visibly frustrated:

Alito has long given off an air of vexation, even as he is regularly in the majority with his conservative ideology. But the frustration of the 74-year-old justice has grown increasingly palpable in the courtroom. He has seldom faced this level of internal opposition.

Overall, Alito wrote the fewest leading opinions for the court this term, only four, while other justices close to his 18-year seniority had been assigned (and kept majorities for) seven opinions each.

His unique year in chambers was matched by the extraordinary public scrutiny for his off-bench activities, including lingering ethics controversies and a newly reported episode regarding an upside-down flag that had flown at this home in January 2021, after the pro–Donald Trump attack on the US Capitol. 

There is also evidence that Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, would like him to step down from the bench so that both of them can openly express their political opinions.

Thus, there’s been speculation, mostly from the political left, that an Alito retirement could happen before or immediately after the current Supreme Court term. The Nation’s legal expert Elie Mystal, then Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Michael Joseph Stern, drew attention to the odd timing of a new Alito book. Here’s the clue on which Mystal focused:

[T]he book is scheduled to be released October 6, 2026. That’s a curious date. The Supreme Court starts its 2026–27 term on October 5, the first Monday of October. Alito’s book is set to drop the next day.

It sure feels like Alito doesn’t plan on having a real job the Tuesday his book launches and instead thinks he’ll be free to run around the country promoting it.

There’s also a political reason Alito might want to step down at this particular moment. He clearly cares about his legacy on the Court and wants to solidify the conservative majority for which he and Justice Clarence Thomas have served as the point of an ideological spear. Trump is leaving office in 2029, and it’s possible Republicans will lose their Senate majority in November. Confirmation of anyone remotely like Alito would be impossible with a Democratic Senate and difficult with a smaller majority than Republicans currently enjoy.

Add in the “Kavanaugh’s revenge” theory of 2018, and you can see why Republicans might really want to press for an Alito retirement and then a good, savage Senate confirmation fight over a controversial nominee to succeed him, possibly 40-somethings like Andrew Oldham or Emil Bove, both Trump-nominated Circuit Court judges. If Alito was to retire at the end of the current term (perhaps announcing the retirement earlier), then the shape of the future Supreme Court could become a base-mobilizing issue for the GOP, all right — but potentially also one for Democrats.

That leads us back to the idea that poor Kavanaugh’s persecution by Democrats “saved the Senate” in 2018. The alternative explanation is that Republicans had an insanely favorable Senate landscape that year in which three Democrats who lost (Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri) were doomed from the get-go by the rapidly rightward trends of their states, and a fourth, Florida’s Bill Nelson, lost by an eyelash in another red-trending state after being massively outspent by then-Governor Rick Scott.

Even if you believe the Kavanaugh fight provided Republicans with a net benefit in 2018, there’s no reason to assume the same thing will happen in 2026, a year in which the Senate landscape is far less favorable to the GOP than it was in 2018 (according to the Cook Political Report, four of the seven competitive Senate races this year are on GOP turf). We also don’t know how the confirmation hearings for an Alito successor will turn out.

But between Alito’s motives for retiring, the GOP’s fear that it could lose control of the confirmation process, and the “Kavanaugh’s revenge” mythology about 2018, don’t be surprised if there’s a Supreme Court fight this summer or fall. Democrats would be happy to bid farewell to the author of the infamous decision reversing Roe v. Wade. Even if it hurts rather than helps their midterm prospects, Alito’s right-wing fans will be happy to welcome a younger version of the cranky conservative onto a life-time seat on the Court.

More on Politics

• Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariffs: What Happened
• Supreme Court May Have Saved Trump From His Disastrous Tariff Addiction
• Trump’s Tariff Fantasy Just Exploded

See All

Tags:

• politics
• early and often
• u.s. supreme court
• samuel alito
• donald trump
• brett kavanaugh
• 2018 midterms
• 2016 midterms
• u.s. senate
• More

5

Show 5 Comments / 5 New Comment

How Justice Alito’s Retirement Might Upend the Midterms Your product is saved! You’ll receive emails when your saved products go on sale. Manage preferences.

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission.

• Production Consultation: Mel Gibson is collaborating with excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on the film project The Resurrection of the Christ.
• Ecclesiastical Conflict: Viganò was excommunicated in 2024 for rejecting the authority of Pope Francis and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
• OnSet Presence: Reporting indicates that Viganò has visited filming locations south of Rome, including the UNESCO World Heritage site of Matera.
• Cast Overhaul: The sequel features an entirely new main ensemble, including Jaakko Ohtonen as Jesus and Mariela Garriga as Mary Magdalene.
• Film Structure: The upcoming project will be divided into two separate films, both scheduled for release in the year 2027.
• Studio Partnerships: The religious epic is being produced by Icon Productions in partnership with Lionsgate, employing a crew of over 500 workers.
• Creative Direction: Scriptwriter Randall Wallace and Gibson have developed a narrative focusing on the resurrection that the director describes as an acid trip.
• Historical Success: The original 2004 film earned 610 million dollars globally, becoming one of the highest-grossing independent films in history.

Mel Gibson is consulting with excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò — who has called the late Pope Francis “a servant of Satan” — for the “The Resurrection of the Christ,” his follow up to 2004’s “The Passion of the Christ” that is currently still shooting in Italy.

Viganò, who is the Vatican’s former ambassador to the United States, was excommunicated in 2024 for refusing to recognize Pope Francis’ authority and rejecting the Second Vatican Council that modernized the Roman Catholic Church. He has repeatedly referred to Francis as a liberal “servant of Satan” and a “false prophet” in public statements. Viganò is also known to be a big fan of U.S. President Donald Trump, a critic of gay rights and a supporter of anti-vaccine positions.

Related Stories

[

](https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/comcast-reunites-jurassic-park-trio-xfinity-super-bowl-1236649023/)

Original 'Jurassic Park' Stars Sam Neil, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum Reunite for Xfinity Super Bowl Commercial

Gibson, who publicly defended Viganò when he was excommunicated, has been receiving input on “The Resurrection” from Viganò according to Italian press reports that were confirmed by sources. Viganò — who though excommunicated, is allowed to keep his Archbishop title — has been present on the set of the sequel that is currently doing exterior shoots in various locations south of Rome. These include the ancient town of Matera, a Unesco World Heritage site known for its prehistoric whitewashed caves where “The Passion” was shot. Viganò and Gibson are seen on set in the social media post below.

Popular on Variety

Variety has reached out to Gibson’s publicist Alan Nierob for comment.

As reported exclusively by Variety, shooting on Gibson’s long-delayed follow up to “The Passion of the Christ” started in early October at the new Studio 22 facility at Rome’s Cinecittà Studios with its main ensemble cast having been entirely recast. Finnish actor Jaakko Ohtonen (“The Last Kingdom”) is playing the role of Jesus, replacing original star Jim Caviezel. Mary Magdalene, a role held in “Passion” by Monica Bellucci, is being played in “Resurrection” by Cuban actress Mariela Garriga, and Smutniak is replacing Maia Morgenstern as Mary. A crew of more than 500 film workers has been employed on the big-budget religious epic in Rome.

More than 20 years ago, Gibson shot the original “Passion of the Christ” at Cinecittà, which became one of the largest-grossing independent films of all time with a worldwide box office of $610 million. As previously announced, “The Resurrection of the Christ” will be split into two films, with both set to release in 2027.

“The Resurrection of the Christ” is being produced by Gibson, Bruce Davey and their Icon Productions banner with Lionsgate as the studio partner.

The original film, which is spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin to create a more historically accurate and immersive experience, followed the final 12 hours before the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Gibson has described the sequels as an “acid trip,” adding that he “never read anything like” the scripts, which the filmmaker wrote alongside “Braveheart” screenwriter Randall Wallace. As the title suggests, the plot is expected to focus on Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Other story details are being kept under wraps.

Jump to Comments

• Election Reversal: Prime Minister Keir Starmer has retracted a decision to cancel local elections amid declining support for the Labour Party.
• Public Concern: National surveys indicate that United Kingdom citizens identify immigration as the country's most significant problem at rates higher than any other nation.
• Reform Momentum: The Reform UK party, led by Nigel Farage, achieved significant electoral gains in local contests compared to the Labour Party.
• Crime Inquiry: Political figures have initiated investigations into crimes committed by asylum-seekers, alleging that victims were failed by protective institutions.
• Law Enforcement: Accuastions have been made that officials avoid prosecuting foreign nationals for certain crimes to maintain community cohesion and avoid accusations of racism.
• Criminal Convictions: Recent court cases have highlighted violent offenses committed by individuals who arrived in the country via small boats shortly before their crimes.
• Information Transparency: Proponents are calling for a public petition to mandate the free publication of court transcripts to ensure transparency regarding criminal proceedings.
• Political Shifts: Recent polling suggests Reform UK has overtaken Labour in popularity, potentially signaling a shift toward right-of-center coalitions in future governance.

England’s migration awakening

Conservatives bring attention to the recent arrivals preying on the public

Farage determined to jolt Britain back to greatness illustration by Alexander Hunter/ The Washington Times Farage determined to jolt Britain back … more >

[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=facebook&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook%26utm_source%3Dsocialnetwork&source=Shareaholic)[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=twitter&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter%26utm_source%3Dsocialnetwork&source=Shareaholic&templates[twitter][body]=${title} - ${short_link} - @washtimes)[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=truthsocial&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Dtruth_link%26utm_source%3Dtruth&source=Shareaholic)[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=reddit&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Dreddit%26utm_source%3Dnews&source=Shareaholic)[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=copy_link&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Dcopy_link%26utm_source%3Dbookmark&source=Shareaholic)[](https://www.shareaholic.com/api/share/?v=1&apitype=1&apikey=1b4cd6dea80b282c132df03b8b3fd9ac&service=mail&title=England's migration awakening&link=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/17/editorial-englands-migration-awakening/%3Futm_campaign%3Dshareaholic%26utm_medium%3Demail_link%26utm_source%3Demail&source=Shareaholic)[Print](javascript:window.print\(\);)

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Commentary

By Editorial Board - The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 17, 2026

OPINION:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer retreated Monday from his cynical decision to cancel upcoming local elections. The Labor Party leader knows his team is about to be clobbered at the ballot box because Britons aren’t happy.

A Gallup survey earlier this month concluded: “The United Kingdom is more likely than any other country in the world to cite immigration as its top national problem.” This awakening has boosted the political fortunes of Reform UK, the alternative right-of-center party committed to making Britain great again.

Led by Nigel Farage, Reform dominated last year’s local contests, racking up 781 wins compared with the paltry 134 council races where Mr. Starmer’s acolytes emerged victorious. Members of Parliament who aren’t afraid of being British have gained traction by spotlighting the nightmare Labor and the Tories created with their open-border policies.

Another conservative faction leader, Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe, just wrapped up a “rape gang inquiry” that heard from the victims of asylum-seekers. “Meeting these women, and men, listening to how severely they were failed by those tasked to protect them? My views have changed forever. I knew it was bad. I never knew how bad it was,” Mr. Lowe explained on X.

Mr. Lowe intends to release findings that should help bring to justice malefactors let free by cowering officials who refused to apply the law to uninvited foreign nationals lest they be seen as racist. “I started this inquiry because so many others failed. Speaking honestly, I did not understand how deep this evil is rooted in our society,” he wrote.

Last week, the Warwick Crown Court found Ahmad Mulakhil guilty of kidnapping and assaulting a 12-year-old girl playing on a swing in a park in July. A co-conspirator filmed the despicable deed, leaving little doubt in the minds of jurors about the Afghan national’s culpability.

The politically correct police force initially concealed the perpetrator’s identity, lest the public realize that the predator had arrived on a tiny boat four months before the crime. Warwickshire County Council member George Finch, a Reform UK member, tried to warn his constituents.

“I was told that if I released this, I would be in contempt of court, that I cannot release this due to this phrase ‘community cohesion.’ That’s the problem,” Mr. Finch said. Liberals don’t want the public to notice that Mulakhil was living in a taxpayer-funded rental house as part of Labor’s scheme to disperse illegal aliens throughout the nation without the community’s knowledge or consent.

Parliament will soon consider a public petition demanding the publication of court proceedings at no cost to prevent authorities from covering up inconvenient facts. “We must obtain the full horror of the rape gangs from these court transcripts. The British people deserve to know the unredacted brutal truth,” Mr. Lowe said.

Word is getting out. A January Ipsos poll lists Reform as the top political party, beating Labor by 8 percentage points. If so, Reform could secure a parliamentary majority in a coalition with conservative groups.

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen for a while. The public handed the keys to 10 Downing St. to Mr. Starmer in 2024, and he doesn’t have to give them back until 2029. Perhaps the growing wave of regret across the Atlantic will inspire Americans to recognize the importance of their civic duty.

What’s happening in once-great Britain also happened on our shores. An unwise public choice in the midterms could stop President Trump’s ongoing effort to reverse the damage.

Copyright © 2026 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Latest Video

• Relational Ontology: Scientific and philosophical inquiry suggests that relations are more fundamental than individual objects, challenging the intuitive worldview of distinct entities like particles or people.
• Evolutionary Bias: The common-sense perception of a world populated by objects is a product of evolutionary survival and practical utility within a limited observational window.
• Quantum Indistinguishability: Observations in quantum statistics, such as permutation invariance in bosons, indicate that particles are not distinct objects but are defined by the symmetries governing them.
• Theory Persistence: Scientific progress often involves the replacement of theoretical objects, yet the mathematical structures and relationships within those theories frequently remain preserved across paradigm shifts.
• Structural Realism: By prioritizing mathematical structures over provisional entities, structural realism offers a way to explain scientific success without committing to specific, potentially transient objects.
• Analytic Limitations: Traditional logic and set theory are ill-equipped to describe a relational reality because they are built upon the assumption of prior, independent objects and variables.
• Primary Difference: Gilles Deleuze proposes an inversion of traditional metaphysics where difference is primary and identity is a derivative outcome of fundamental processes of differentiation.
• Morphogenetic Modeling: Drawing on embryology and differential calculus, Deleuze provides a conceptual framework for understanding how physical objects and structures emerge from underlying intensive gradients and mathematical relations.

We assume that objects are more fundamental than the relationships between those objects. However, philosopher George Webster argues that quantum mechanics upends this common-sense picture. In the quantum world, relations like symmetry are more real than the particles themselves. But neither our everyday language, nor the language of logic favored by philosophers, can make sense of this. Webster suggests that we turn to the weird and wonderful language of Gilles Deleuze to truly comprehend the quantum picture of reality.

The everyday picture: a world of objects

We ordinarily think of the world as a collection of things or individual objects: tables, trees, planets, particles, people.

This way of thinking is not only intuitive but also tremendously useful. Whether crossing a busy street or hunting prey, we survive by tracking the motions of objects—judging their distances, anticipating their paths, and timing our actions accordingly. Evolutionarily speaking, this is a worldview to which humanity owes its continued existence.

But it is also a worldview motivated by a very specific practical context. We occupy an extremely limited perspective on the world, and we have little reason to believe that that perspective (i.e., an observational window ranging from millimetres to miles and from milliseconds to a century or so) accurately represents the universe at its grandest quantum and cosmological scales.

Indeed, not only do we have little reason to suppose that our practically motivated model of the world accurately reflects reality, but we also have positive reason to believe that it fails to do so. This is because science—and recent philosophical reflection on the sciences—suggests an alternative account. That is, one according to which not objects but relations are the ultimate constituents of reality.

___

What is fundamentally real are not particles as such, but rather the laws and symmetries (such as permutation invariance) that govern their behaviour.

___

But this is a strange thought. Relations such as “being in love with” or “standing taller than” or “moving faster than” all seem to presuppose the objects between which they obtain. Relations, in other words, seem to depend upon objects for their existence. So why invert this picture? And how does a figure seemingly irrelevant to contemporary philosophy of science (the twentieth-century “post-modern” French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze) help us to make sense of this inversion?

Quantum theory and why objects are not fundamental

Cause for a relations-based worldview can be found in quantum theory (or, more specifically, quantum statistics).

Two coins flipped simultaneously will produce one of four outcomes—each occurring with equal frequency when the experiment is repeated continuously. Two elementary particles (in this case bosons), on the other hand, fired through an appropriate experimental setup designed to measure analogous properties (e.g., spin-up and spin-down), will produce three outcomes—each occurring with equal frequency.

In the case of the coins, the fourfold probability distribution is explained partly by the fact that we can count a mixed result in two distinct ways: one coin displaying heads and the other displaying tails, and vice versa. Even though the coins may be the same denomination (e.g., both fifty-pence pieces), they are distinct objects and so exchanging them counts as a different physical state.

The quantum case, however, requires an alternative explanation. If exchanging our particles yields no observable or statistical difference (i.e., if our particles are “permutation invariant”), then we are forced to conclude that the exchanged states are in fact one and the same physical state. And though there are further steps in this interpretative story, an upshot that must be taken seriously is that exchanging elementary particles makes no difference because they are not distinct objects and so must be understood relationally. Some structural realists, for example, take this to show that what is fundamentally real are not particles as such, but rather the laws and symmetries (such as permutation invariance) that govern their behaviour.

Relations instead of objects in the philosophy of science

Reflection on a canonical puzzle in the philosophy of science also suggests that we abandon our object-oriented worldview and embrace a metaphysics of relations.

The best explanation for the effectiveness of our theories is that they provide true descriptions of the world. If a model successfully predicts voting patterns by assuming a particular distribution of sentiments across a population, then a good first-pass explanation of that model’s success is that those sentiments are in fact present and distributed in the way the model claims. Likewise, the successful application of quantum theory to technologies like computer chips, GPS, optical fibres, and MRI machines is best explained by the existence of the various particles and fields to which the theory refers.

___

A promising solution is to recognize that, while their objects may change, the mathematical structure of theories is often preserved.

___

But the history of science is riddled with discarded theoretical terms (e.g., caloric, phlogiston, the luminiferous aether), some of which featured in theories that enjoyed success. The caloric theory of heat, for example, was incredibly explanatorily successful. And yet, we no longer think that caloric exists.

Thus, the argument goes, we have no right to endorse the existence of our current theoretical posits (electrons, quarks, neutrinos, the Higgs boson, etc.). And this because we have little reason to believe that our current theories won’t be superseded by more successful theories involving different posits, just as the caloric theory of heat was superseded by our kinetic theory.

A problem therefore arises. We can either explain the effectiveness of science (by committing ourselves to the existence of our theoretical posits) or respect the realities of progress and theory change (by refusing to do so). But we cannot do both—or at least, so it would seem.

In fact, a promising solution is to recognize that, while their objects may change, the mathematical structure of theories is often preserved.

Much of the structure of Augustin-Jean Fresnel’s early-nineteenth-century theory of optics, for example, is retained in James Clerk Maxwell’s successor theory later that century. That is to say, the same mathematical relationships are described in each; it’s just that Fresnel postulated light waves as propagating mechanically through a luminiferous aether (akin to soundwaves travelling through air), whereas for Maxwell they are disturbances in an electromagnetic field.

SUGGESTED READING AI will revolutionise financial advice By Jack Solowey

So, if we restrict our metaphysical commitments to what is preserved through theory change, we get the best of both worlds. We can explain the success of science without committing ourselves to entities that history suggests are provisional. The upshot, however, is a revised worldview according to which all that exists (or, at least, all we can know) are the functional relationships represented by mathematical structure—a further motivation for structural realism in the philosophy of science.

This is part of the scientific and philosophical background against which a relational metaphysics has gained traction. And it is also the background against which some limitations of analytic philosophy—our dominant philosophical tradition—come into view.

The limits of analytic philosophy

The idea that relations might be ontologically fundamental is well motivated by contemporary science. But it remains deeply counterintuitive. As we have seen, we tend to think of relations as secondary or derivative—as dependent on objects with intrinsic properties. Everest can only be taller than Kilimanjaro, for example, because there are first two mountains, each with a determinate height.

This intuition is reinforced by the descriptive machinery of analytic philosophy (i.e., modern logic and set theory), which prioritizes objecthood from the start. By describing the world in terms of objects represented by variables, to which properties are attributed or which belong to sets, modern logic and set theory hamstring structural realists, making it difficult for them to express their metaphysical view.

___

Objects do not come first and then differ; rather, objects emerge out of more fundamental processes of differentiation.

___

If we are serious about the possibility that relations come first, then it’s worth looking beyond the analytic tradition. It is here that Gilles Deleuze enters the picture. Though Deleuze is often mislabelled as “postmodern,” and so associated with a form of scepticism about science and truth, he in fact offers a way of making sense of the relational implications of science, drawing directly and explicitly on scientific ideas themselves.

Deleuze: difference comes before identity

Deleuze argues that the concepts of difference and identity have been systematically misunderstood throughout the history of philosophy. Traditionally, difference is treated as derivative or secondary—as a relation of non-identity between already constituted identities or individuals. In other words, identity is logically and ontologically prior to difference because things differ only in virtue of their already established properties (as in our mountains example).

Deleuze argues that this picture should be inverted. On his account, difference is primary and identity is derivative. Objects do not come first and then differ; rather, objects emerge out of more fundamental processes of differentiation.

This reversal has profound consequences. It undercuts the very intuition that makes a relations-based metaphysics seem incoherent. But what motivates such a reversal? And what descriptive language, if not modern logic and set theory, can we employ to make sense of it?

To answer these questions, we can turn to Deleuze’s engagements with science.

Deleuze and the sciences

To make sense of how objects emerge from relations, Deleuze draws on embryology—and specifically work on morphogenesis from the early twentieth century. These theories explain how a complex, three-dimensional organism emerges from an egg. And, crucially, they do so by invoking “gradients” (e.g., intensive differential relationships in temperature or chemical concentration) that induce folding and layering movements, effectively 3D-printing an animal body from cellular material.

In vertebrate development, for example, a process called “neurulation” involves the folding of a sheet of cellular material into a tube, itself ultimately developing into the central nervous system. Drawing on these gradient-based embryological theories, Deleuze claims that all such developmental processes are precipitated by relations—that is, intensive differences in temperature or chemical distribution and the processes through which they are equalized or cancelled out.

Deleuze argues that embryology provides a model for thinking about the world in general. All phenomena, on his account, are generated by analogous differential relationships. Air currents, tornadoes and hurricanes are given their structure by temperature and pressure differentials; the Earth’s geological structure is formed by similar differences that drive currents of magma or sediment; and perceptions and emotions are synthesized out of all sorts of subconscious cognitive processes and interactions.

Deleuze’s engagements with embryology may shed light on how one might understand the relational constitution of objects and states of affairs in the world. Nonetheless, the very idea of a fundamental difference or relation (i.e., a relation not derived from the properties of objects) may still seem bizarre and inarticulable. It is here that Deleuze’s engagements with mathematics, and specifically differential calculus, become important. He argues that the calculus provides a technical language for describing fundamental relations, and itself implies a metaphysics of relations.

The calculus, ubiquitous in the mathematical articulation of scientific theories, is a tool for describing instantaneous rates of change. We can use it, for example, to determine the speed of a continuously accelerating object at any given point on its journey. Drawing on various elements of its history, Deleuze argues that this mathematical machinery suggests that such rates of change, or “differential relations,” actually precede the things they relate. A key example here is a 1701 note by Leibniz, “Justification of the Infinitesimal Calculus by that of Ordinary Algebra,” in which he shows (on Deleuze’s view) how the proportional relationship between the sides of a triangle remains even when the lengths of those sides are reduced to zero, in effect demonstrating the primacy of relations over their relata.

By foregrounding calculus (and other parts of contemporary mathematics), Deleuze derives a novel descriptive and conceptual vocabulary for his metaphysics of relations, sidestepping our above concerns regarding the appropriate language in which to articulate such a worldview. Indeed, this strategy predates, by more than half a century, the analogue “mathematics-first” approach very recently endorsed by contemporary structural realists.

This discussion is only schematic. But it indicates the relevance and advantages of cutting across traditional philosophical boundaries. The thought of Gilles Deleuze in many ways anticipates and supports the structural realist project, helping us to discover and express, in his words, “the metaphysics science needs.”