Holism and reductionism Issues and debates
Reductionism is defined as breaking down complex phenomenon into simple constituents
and offers a simpler explanation. Where using levels of explanation, behaviour can be
worked down to the simplest conclusion from all affecting factors present. At the highest
level is social and cultural explanations of behaviour which are examples of environmental
reductionism, and at the lowest levels are biological explanations which is known as
biological reductionism.
An example of reductionism is the case study of Kim Peek, where he was born with no
corpus callosum this meant that his memory was increased beyond the normal limit of 7 +-
2 items as suggested by miller (1956). This was suggested to be due to the fact that his brain
made unusual connections, which is an example of low-level reductionism. However, if this
view is taken in isolation then the understanding of the behaviour may be overlooked.
Where research conducted by Wolpe (1973) found that a lady with a fear of insects, did not
improve when being treated via systematic desensitisation, it was later found that she
associated insects with her marital problems as her husband had an insect nickname. Which
is a weakness of low-level reductionism, as in the case of Kim peak because biological
reductionism may cause other factors to be overlooked, decreasing the validity of the
reductionism approach at the low levels of explanation.
A further limitation of the reductionist approach is that reducing behaviour to a form that
can be studied may not be applicable to everyday life. For example, research conducted by
Loftus and Palmer into eye witness testimony has not always been confirmed by studies of
real life. So, in making something measurable by removing external factors, means that it
doesn’t resemble the true behaviour. Which suggests that experimental reductionism may
have a negative effect on the relevance of psychological research.
Holism on the other hand, is where behaviour is viewed as a whole and that the sum of
different parts, will not equal the whole. Which suggests that, reductionism doesn’t play a
part in understanding behaviour. This is supported by the research conducted by Wolpe, as
in order to find the cause and treat the woman’s phobia a holistic approach must have been
taken as the whole of her life was looked at not focussing on the cause being conditioning.
However, a criticism of holism is that it cannot ever be viewed as scientific as it attempts to
blend different levels of explanation, not show a cause and effect relationship. Meaning that
because holism doesn’t examine behaviour as operationalised parts, it can’t be measured or
operationalised.
Reductionism is defined as breaking down complex phenomenon into simple constituents
and offers a simpler explanation. Where using levels of explanation, behaviour can be
worked down to the simplest conclusion from all affecting factors present. At the highest
level is social and cultural explanations of behaviour which are examples of environmental
reductionism, and at the lowest levels are biological explanations which is known as
biological reductionism.
An example of reductionism is the case study of Kim Peek, where he was born with no
corpus callosum this meant that his memory was increased beyond the normal limit of 7 +-
2 items as suggested by miller (1956). This was suggested to be due to the fact that his brain
made unusual connections, which is an example of low-level reductionism. However, if this
view is taken in isolation then the understanding of the behaviour may be overlooked.
Where research conducted by Wolpe (1973) found that a lady with a fear of insects, did not
improve when being treated via systematic desensitisation, it was later found that she
associated insects with her marital problems as her husband had an insect nickname. Which
is a weakness of low-level reductionism, as in the case of Kim peak because biological
reductionism may cause other factors to be overlooked, decreasing the validity of the
reductionism approach at the low levels of explanation.
A further limitation of the reductionist approach is that reducing behaviour to a form that
can be studied may not be applicable to everyday life. For example, research conducted by
Loftus and Palmer into eye witness testimony has not always been confirmed by studies of
real life. So, in making something measurable by removing external factors, means that it
doesn’t resemble the true behaviour. Which suggests that experimental reductionism may
have a negative effect on the relevance of psychological research.
Holism on the other hand, is where behaviour is viewed as a whole and that the sum of
different parts, will not equal the whole. Which suggests that, reductionism doesn’t play a
part in understanding behaviour. This is supported by the research conducted by Wolpe, as
in order to find the cause and treat the woman’s phobia a holistic approach must have been
taken as the whole of her life was looked at not focussing on the cause being conditioning.
However, a criticism of holism is that it cannot ever be viewed as scientific as it attempts to
blend different levels of explanation, not show a cause and effect relationship. Meaning that
because holism doesn’t examine behaviour as operationalised parts, it can’t be measured or
operationalised.
