Holism vs Reductionism

• Holism:

  An argument or theory which proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system rather than its constituent parts.
• Reductionism:

  The belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it into smaller constituent parts. It is based on the scientific principle of parsimony. All behaviour should be explained using the most basic principles.
• Branches of Reductionism:

  1. Biological Reductionism
  2. Environmental Reductionism
• Biological Reductionism:

  • Attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level regarding genes and neurotransmitters.
  • Biological reductionism is based on the premise that we are biological organisms made up of physiological structures and processes.
  • This means that we can explain behaviour through neurochemical and genetic factors.
  • This is a key assumption of the biological approach.
• Biological Reductionism: Strengths:

  1. It is scientific and complies with parsimony.
  2. It is easy to replicate studies – clear and simple procedures.
  3. Allows for successful treatments.
• Biological Reductionism: Weaknesses:

  1. Too simplistic and can result in us missing important factors such as the environment.
  2. Ignored learned behaviours.
  3. Ignores social factors.
• Environmental Reductionism: Strengths:

  1. Successfully explains behaviour like phobias that have a clear event as their starting point.
  2. Parsimony – Simple is better so that we can understand complex behaviour.
• Environmental Reductionism: Weaknesses:

  1. Can be too simplistic. We cannot ignore or dispute the fact that our biology and physiology have a huge impact on our behaviour. 2. Focus on learned association and ignore other factors that might be important in understanding.
• Strength of Holism: Evaluation: AO3:

  • One strength of holism is that some aspects of behaviour can only be understood by taking a holistic approach.
  • Conformity to social roles and de-individualisation only emerge in a social context – meaning they cannot be studied and understood in a reductionist way.
  • For example, in Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment, we would not have been able to study the behavioural changes and conformity of the participants outside the context of the experiment.
  • Therefore, this is important because it highlights the importance of viewing the person.
  • However, it is widely recognised that this was an atypical and extreme situation that lacked various ethical considerations.
  • Without these ethics being controlled – it can be argued that the participants actually underwent psychological changes, such as spikes in cortisol and other stress hormones.
• Weakness of Holism: Evaluation: AO3:

  • On the other hand, it can be argued that holistic explanations such as the humanistic approach may be criticised for a lack of empirical evidence. Do not allow for rigorous scientific testing and therefore, often become vague and speculative.
  • Furthermore, they often present a practical dilemma in determining which holistic factor is the most prevalent in behaviour and which one to focus on - seen through humanistic psychology where it is seen as a loose set of concepts.
  • Psychodynamic approach is criticised for its lack of falsifiability and the vague concepts that it constitutes.
  • However, despite limited empirical evidence, holistic approaches like humanistic and psychodynamic, offer valuable insights into human behaviour.
  • For example, Rogers' CCT has shown success in improving mental health.
• Strength of Reductionism: Evaluation: AO3:

  • Some may argue for the reductionist approach, as it forms the basis for scientific and empirical research.
  • This is because to ensure a scientific approach, behaviour must be operationalised.
  • This allows us to see the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
  • This means that a reductionist approach is crucial because we must make sure that the dependent variable is not affected by other extraneous variables.
  • Furthermore, another reason to agree with the statement is due to the nature of behaviourist psychology, where research into stimulus-response relationships is based entirely on the researcher's observations.
  • This type of research may be criticised due to the opportunity for researcher bias and participant reactivity issues, so they may not be as reliable as other more reductionist approaches such as MRI scanning.