Holism versus Reductionism

Introduction

Psychologists, biologists, and other research professionals incorporate different research strategies when studying different phenomena such as human behavior, diseases and disorders and other problems that individuals face in the real life. The broader categorization of these study strategies can be in terms of either dividing the whole into its parts or studying the whole as it is. These strategies go by the name reductionism and holism respectively. The main objective of this paper is thus to examine and understand the concepts of holism and reductionism through explaining them separately. I will start with describing the concept of holism followed by reductionism then examine the application of both in a broad range of areas such as medicine, philosophy, physics, and other different areas of academics. I will also discuss how they both relate to System Dynamics. Lastly, I will give a summary of the aspects of similarities and differences of holism and reductionism.

Holism

The term holism refers to the all-conceptualization, knowledge and view of things (their nature, functions, and properties) as the resultant of the interactions, and relationships of the parts of the whole. Contrary to reductionists, proponents of holism believe that the relationship between the part and the system are very symmetrical ( Looijen, 2000). In other words, holists focus on the inter-connectedness, inter-dependency, and interaction of parts rather than their individuality as the whole is considered to bring forward better and more comprehensive meaning than the individual parts. Thus in holism any system and its properties are viewed as whole rather than a collection of properties the parts and their properties. As such, the holistic approach considers the whole is more or rather not equal to the difference of the sum of its constituent parts (Verschuren, 2001). The concept of holism is not new; it has been applied in many fields, mostly in social and scientific areas, particularly for general qualitative purposes. For instance, it has been used for ethnomethodologies and methodological literature for case studies. If the holistic approach is followed for case studies, then the study is referred to as case oriented (Allwood, 2003).

A holistic approach is considered sufficient in research as it helps the researchers examine complex processes easily and by themselves and timely come up with ample conclusions on the complex information such as processes, configuration, patterns, etc. The holistic approach is also helpful in understanding the collective systems (Allwood, 2003). It sufficiently provides a basis for the importance of as team spirit, group culture and essence of togetherness when working for an organization. Besides, the holistic approach also helps us understand the objects in terms of pictures; it helps in parallel viewing the objects in their reality (Verscherun, 2001).

Apparently, holism concepts have been applied in different fields of study medicine, agriculture, and architecture, among many others. Holism in architecture tends to imply an all-inclusive design perspective. A designed object (such as an image) is a system that loses meaning if subdivided or broken down. In medicine, the human condition such as sickness affects the whole body equally. All organs are interrelated and interdependent and receive the impact of triggers (such an injection). As such, the human body is a holistic figure. Similarly, holism fully applies in agriculture. Farming activities are themselves mutually interrelated in such a manner that one activity may not yield results independent of the other. Good outcomes result from adhering to a system of activities that together make enviable harvest ( Looijen, 2000).

Reductionism

Reductionism refers to the material world-view in which complex phenomenon cannot be efficiently studied or accounted for in their complex status but requires to be broken down into conceptual chunks small enough to be analyzed or measured. As such, reductionists believe that a phenomena or a problem can be sufficiently addressed by first understanding the properties of the constituent parts (Ostreng, n.d.). Therefore, in reductionism, a complex system is simplified into its constituent parts, after which each part is studied individually using the same or various approaches. That implies that reductionism bills the descriptions of a system from the descriptions of its subsystem that the system was made from other than the relationship between the sub-standard systems. If applied in biology, a reductionist would consider the biological system as composed of molecules with certain structures, molecule, and atoms.  Thus, to understand the nature and problem of this biological system, a reductionist would break it into its constituent molecules or further the breakdown of each molecule into their constituent atoms, study them and sum up the results to give the wholesome properties of the whole (Verschuren, 2001).

 In any case, reductionism is a study strategy whereby the parts of the whole enjoy ontological priority. They are the first in the list of all considerations whereas the whole (in the same ontological sense) comes later. Reductionism can be said to represent a view of the subject at a low structural level. That may be interpreted to imply that the whole follows from the parts or in other words; the whole is already implicit in the parts ( Looijen, 2000). However, reductionism may not apply in some areas or, in the study of some phenomenon. That owes to the fact that by definition, the whole has to be divided into constituent parts. If then the phenomenon cannot be divided or broken down into simpler component parts, then reductionism may not work. From all analysis, reductionism is very useful in understanding inanimate beings, things or simple systems rather than animate subjects such as natural systems (Allwood, 2003).

Nevertheless, there are various levels or types of reductionism.   Constituent reductionism is one amongst the types of reductionism that asserts that the decomposition of a complex system results in fragments that corresponds to the total weights of constituents. For instance, splitting an organism will result in thousands of its constituent molecules (Allwood, 2003). In the event of re-merging them together, the organism structure and mass will re-form with no any extra ingredient left over.  The second type of reductionism is the Ontological reductionism that is defined as the belief that the whole if broken down results into a minimal number of parts. Third is the conceptual reductionism, the assertion that the concepts that apply to the whole can ideally be expressed in terms of the totality of concepts applying to the parts (Ostreng, n.d.).

Holism over reductionism and vice versa

Holism has a lot of strengths over reductions. It is simpler and time conservative than reductionism since the researcher will not have first to simplify the whole into parts and study each separately. If applied in a management, it will result in quicker decision-making and instant solutions. Holistic ideas are also direct with minimum complexities and struggles ( Looijen, 2000). It’s, however, less effective than reductionism in some cases. It tends prevents further researches that can help in a deeper understanding of the issue. It is thus less scientific than reductionism since it does support deep scrutiny to uncover systems’ complexities basing its conclusion on whole while ignoring weighing the effect of its parts. The failures of holism constitute the strengths of reductionism over holism. Another of the strengths of reductionism is that it is simpler as studying the parts is easier than the complex system. However, it tends to simplify whole things that cannot be simplified such as diseases and diagnosis (Verschuren, 2001).

Similarities and Differences

A deeper scrutiny of what entails holism and what reductionism implies shows that there are no many differences between reductionism and holism. Apparently, there exist no necessary contradictions between the two approaches, one centering its focus on properties of the parts whereas the other on the relationship (interactions and interdependence) between them (Ostreng, n.d.). When the two approaches are assembled, they stand as supplements to each other rather than conflicting. That means that what holism may not be able to reach is reached by reductionism. When there is no much time for study, reductionism can be substituted by holism. In essence, there are no clear, practical, philosophical or ideological contradictions between reduction and holism which can be scientifically proven ( Looijen, 2000).

Differences

The major difference between holism and reductionism lies only on the fact that holism is an approach whereby beings, objects or phenomena of interest are viewed as wholes.  On the other hand, reductionism is when the phenomenon of interest is studied by first reducing it to its simple components that are later analyzed and summed up to constitute the characteristics of the whole (Ostreng, n.d.).

References

Allwood, S. (2003). The concepts of reductionism and holism in the sociological theory. Göteborg: Universitet, Sociological institution.

Looijen, R. C. (2000). Holism and Reductionism in Biology and Ecology: The Mutual Dependence of Higher and Lower Level Research Programmes. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Ostreng, W. (n.d.).  Reductionism versus holism- contrasting approaches. Retrieved from http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/Seminar/Consilience_Ostreng.pdf

Verschuren, M (2001). Holism versus Reductionism in Modern Social Science Research, Quality and Quantity, 35(4). 389

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in graduate paper writing service if you need a similar paper you can place your order from custom research paper writing service.