holism vs reductionism

holism vs reductionism

the holism vs reductionism debate is concerned with the level at which it’s appropriate to explain human behaviour

holism

Proposes that it only makes sense to study an indivisible system rather than its constituent parts.  

Humanist psychologists support the holism approach -> view successful therapy as bringing together all aspects of the ‘whole person’. 

AO3 - strength of holism

there are often aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context.

thus, can’t be understood at the level of the individual group members.

e.g. the effects of conformity to social roles and the de-individualisation of the prisoners and guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment couldn’t be understood by studying the pps as individuals, it was the interaction between people and the behaviour of the group that was important.

this shows that holistic explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches. 

AO3 - limitation of holism

tend to not use rigorous scientific testing so can become vague and speculative as they become more complex.

e.g. humanistic psychology, which takes a holistic approach to behaviour, tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence, and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts. Higher level explanations that combine many different perspectives present research with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to, e.g. depression, it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use, e.g. as a basis for therapy.

this suggests that, when it comes to finding solutions for real-world problems, lower-level (more reductionist) explanations may be more appropriate.

reductionism

The belief that human behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into smaller constituent parts. 

Based on the scientific principle of parsimony – that all phenomena should be explained using the most basic (lowest level) principles 

biological and environmental reductionism

biological reductionism

a form of reductionism which attempts to explain social and psychological phenomena at a lower biological level (in terms of the actions of genes, hormones, etc.) 

Based on the premise that humans are biological organisms made up of physiological structures and processes. 

Thus, all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained via neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences. 

E.g. the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes. 

environmental reductionism

the attempt to explain all behaviour in terms of stimulus-response links that have been learned through experience.

the behaviourist approach is built upon environmental reductionism. Behaviourists study observable behaviour only, and in doing so, breaking complex learning up into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the lab. 

Thus, the key unit of analysis occurs at the physical level – the behaviourist approach doesn’t concern itself with mental (cognitive) processes of the mind that occur at the psychological level. The mind is regarded as a ‘blank box’ - irrelevant to our understanding of behaviour. Watson saw the process of thought itself as a form of ‘sub-vocal’ (silent) speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour. 

AO3 - strength of reductionism

a reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research.

in order to create operationalised variables it’s necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts. This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable.

also, the behaviourist approach was able to demonstrate how complex learning could be broken down into simple stimulus-response links within the lab. This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy. 

AO3 - limitation of reductionism

oversimplify complex phenomena leading to a loss in validity.

Explanations that operate at the level of gene, neurotransmitter or neuron don’t include an analysis of the social context within which behaviour occurs – and this is where behaviour in question may derive its meaning.

E.g. the physiological process involved in pointing one’s finger will be the same regardless of the context. But, an analysis of these won’t explain why the finger is pointed – to draw attention to an object or person, as an act of aggression, as part of a raised hand to answer a question in class, etc. This means that reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation.

levels of explanation in psychology

The notion of ‘levels of explanation’ suggests that there are different ways of viewing the same phenomena in psychology – some more reductionist than others. 

E.g. OCD: 
- At a socio-cultural level -> as producing behaviour, such as repetitive hand washing, that most people would regard as odd or irrational. 
- At a psychological level -> as the experience of having obsessive thoughts 
- At a physical level -> as a sequence of movements involved in washing one’s hands 
- etc.

Each level is more reductionist that the previous. 

Psychology itself can be placed within a hierarchy of science, with the more precise and ‘micro’ of these disciplines at the bottom, and the more general and ‘macro’ of these at the top. 

Researchers who favour reduction accounts of behaviour would see psychology as ultimately being replaced by explanations derived from the sciences lower down in the hierarchy.

the interactionist approach

Another alternative to reductionism, which is subtly different to holism

Whereas holism is more concerned with higher level explanations of behaviour, such as the behaviour of individuals with within a group, interactionism considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact.

An example of the interactionist approach is the diathesis-stress model which has been used to explain the onset of mental disorders such as sz and depression. Such disorders are seen to come about as the result of a genetic predisposition which is ‘triggered’ by some stressor (often an experience).

This model has led to a more multidisciplinary and ‘holistic’ approach to treatment – e.g. combining drugs and family therapy – and is associated with lower relapse rates (Tarrier et al.).