Aliz Ovlachi
ABSTRACT Human connection is often assumed to emerge naturally from internal capacities developed through secure attachment and adequate caregiving. Yet clinical observation suggests that for some individuals, relational functioning depends fundamentally on external structures—roles, rituals, institutions and protocols—that scaffold connection in ways that may never become fully internalised. This paper argues that scaffold‐dependence is not simply a variant of attachment insecurity, poor differentiation or weak coping, but a distinct developmental problem of internalisation: some people possess real relational capacity yet cannot reliably access or sustain it without external structural support. Drawing on Vygotsky's scaffolding concept, Bowlby's attachment theory, Winnicott's true/false self‐distinction and contemporary work on affective scaffolding, interpersonal scaffold theory (IST) proposes a three‐type developmental taxonomy: Type I (External Dependency), Type II (Residual Symbolic) and Type III (Internalised Architecture). The paper advances the argument that a clinically important class of relational ruptures and transition crises is better understood as failures at scaffold transitions than as simple failures of love, motivation or attachment alone. On this basis, IST offers a proposed mechanistic account of abrupt relational collapse, introduces the constructs of functional insolvency, structural load failure and the permanent prosthetic, and generates testable propositions for empirical investigation.