Press "Enter" to skip to content

Holism vs. Reductionism Research Paper

Introduction

Holism vs. reduction debate has continued to attract significant attention from which several questions about the nature develop. These questions seem difficult and almost impossible to answer. However, they can be summarized in few words. In the case of reduction, a complex system is explained regarding splitting it into simpler constituent elements where reducing such a complex system is the only known way through which insights about it can be drawn and understood. On the other hand, holism advocates understanding and assessing a complex system as a whole instead of reducing it into constituent elements.

Holism

Holism refers to any method of explaining a sophisticated system which emphasizes on the whole system instead of the constituent elements. Therefore, holism emphasizes more on the importance of the whole than the sum of its constituent elements. Most of the modern qualitative methods where there is the employment of humanistic approach reflect holistic method. Others are social psychology. In general terms, holism can be thought of as system thinking. What we get from this alternative naming is the fact that holism cannot reduce systems into their constituent elements while explaining them (Mazzocchi, 2012).

Holism is a method through which complex systems are explained by considering the whole system instead of the constituent elements. Among other things is that holism assesses the whole behavior of individual, whole group, the whole event, or the whole system. It evaluates the subject in totality. In the case of a person, it does not consider the person regarding limbs, brains, or other various internal systems. This system explanation and evaluation phenomenon emphasize on how the whole system is important when it comes to making examinations because the whole system is made up of the whole elements that are required. It argues by the more importance of whole than the importance of the system’s constituent elements (Wolfe, 2012).

According to holism, an isolated system or a person is not fully determinate and does not have features until such a system can be positioned within the natural class in which it should be inserted. Take the example of a computer system. A computer system is made up of its constituent elements like the CPU, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and other hardware parts. It may be impossible for such a computer system to function fully without bringing all these elements together to constituent a computer system. The various parts of the computer system must be constituted to help in document processing. Such a computer system may not be useful at all if some of the elements will be missing. A person who has not seen a computer system before may not understand it fully if it will be explained regarding each part that constituent it.

In the study of components of a fully functional system, it is essential to study the complete organization of the system and the wholeness of the system. According to holism, study and analysis of the constituent elements reveals less than studying of the system as a whole. This study gives a holistic and an exhaustive picture than how it would have been with reducing the system into parts that constituent it. This approach holds that higher levels that make up a system do not presume the sophistications of the system behavior and more meaning can be driven from them. It is noteworthy to understand that the approach helps in consolidating different system components thus helping in understanding the whole system. The approach suggests about the availability of different levels of explanation where each of the levels holds emergent features than cannot reduce the system further (Pan, Valerdi, & Kang, 2013).

Reductionism 

Reductionism is the exact opposite of holism where the this approach holds natural systems and human behavior can be explained in the best way by splitting it into smaller building blocks. In the case of human behavior, a person can comfortably understand it by close observation of the single elements making up the system. Reductionism may be taken to be similar parsimony. Parsimony holds to the fact that complex establishments can be explained using their building blocks which underlie their principles. Reduction helps in explaining complex systems and human behaviors by reducing them into their constituent elements. There are those who argue that approaching the explanations of complex systems and human behaviors by reductionism reduces the stress that is brought about by the explanations because each part is evaluated differently (Polese & Di Nauta, 2013).

Reductionism is associated with the separation of systems and human behaviors into their constituent elements. However, there are some instances where this approach may fail especially if the parts to be separated closely related because of its consideration of such systems as a whole element that cannot be separated further. The fact that the approach focuses on individual parts is disadvantageous because it takes the time to reconstruct the system which has been segregated. Furthermore, it is a complicated affair to analyze an issue using its parts. It is even worse to reconstruct the systems after separation of the constituent elements because the whole system may be distorted altogether (Pigliucci, 2014).

Implementing reductionism becomes risky when one deals with complex systems if the user does not have adequate reductionism knowledge and understanding. Implementing this approach especially where an understanding of the system is limited affects the cost and time negatively. The users should emphasize and focus greatly on understanding the connection between the elements that make up the system than the features of each of the constituent element.  Although there are some challenges with this approach, analysis of complex systems using reductionism helps to reveal other features and levels of the system. Therefore, the user can understand the functioning of the system easily. Additionally, we are in a position to gain unique knowledge of each of the elements and the forces that hold them together (Looijen, 2012).

Approaching complex systems through reduction helps us to understand that complex structure and systems cannot exist without the total sum of its building blocks and the forces that hold them together. Therefore, if such a system is a total of its building blocks, it cannot be easily understood without assessing its individual parts. Also, the accounts of the system have a close relationship with the accounts of the system. We note that natural and physical structures constitute tiny substances. The tiny substances have different behaviors and are comparable to atomic knowledge. Simplifying such systems can be analyzed easily through which hidden problems can easily be discovered while developing new knowledge about the system (Gatherer, 2010).

Difference between Holism and reduction

Holism argues that complex systems cannot be evaluated and understood without approaching them holistically. On the other hand, reductionism contradicts this because it breaks such systems into parts that can be understood simply and better. Therefore, while holism helps in understanding the wholeness of a system, reductionism helps in understanding the wholeness of the system by breaking it into elements that constituent it.

Trying to understand system through holism does not provide us with the knowledge through which we can understand complicated systems. However, it is opposite with the reductionism where the systems are assessed through their elementary parts. This evaluation helps us in understanding the complications associated with the system or the behavior before joining the parts to make a whole again.

The fact that reductionism separates all the constituent elements in trying to understand the system address almost every issue while addressing systematic problems. Through this, the system answers most of the potential questions associated with the system. However, holism is shallow in the way it addresses problems because it does not reveal hidden knowledge about the systems that would have led to the generation of new knowledge thereby leaving most of the questions unattended (De Porcellinis et al., 2009).

Conclusion

There are more knowledge and concepts underlying the debate of holism and reductionism than what have been addressed here. There are also several other differences that determine a user preference of one approach over another. However, there is no specific advantage that dictates approaching a situation using either holism or reductionism. Application of either of the approaches depends purely on the user and what he intends to achieve ultimately.

References

De Porcellinis, S., Oliva, G., Panzieri, S., & Setola, R. (2009). A holistic-reductionistic approach   for modeling interdependencies. In Critical infrastructure protection III (pp. 215-227).     Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Gatherer, D. (2010). So what do we really mean when we say that systems biology is        holistic? BMC systems biology4(1), 22.

Looijen, R. C. (2012). Holism and reductionism in biology and ecology: the mutual dependence    of higher and lower level research programmes (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business    Media.

Mazzocchi, F. (2012). Complexity and the reductionism–holism debate in systems             biology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine4(5), 413-427.

Pan, X., Valerdi, R., & Kang, R. (2013). Systems thinking: A comparison between Chinese and   Western approaches. Procedia Computer Science16, 1027-1035.

Pigliucci, M. (2014). Between holism and reductionism: a philosophical primer on emergence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society112(2), 261-267.

Polese, F., & Di Nauta, P. (2013). A viable systems approach to relationship management in SD   logic and service science. Polese, F., Di Nauta, P.(2013),“A Viable Systems Approach to       Relationship Management in SD Logic and Service Science”, in Business Administration      Review, Schäffer-Poeschel73(2), 113-129.

Wolfe, C. T. (2012). Chance between holism and reductionism: tensions in the conceptualization of Life. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 110(1), 113-120.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in research paper services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for professional research proposal writing services.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply