what is holistic thinking in philosophy essay

The Impact of WeFuture’s ‘Challenge Your World’ Workshop in Amsterdam | Case Study

Holistic thinking: what it is, why it’s important, and how to do it.

• Holistic Thinking
• World Conservation

We humans like to simplify things. And that's a good thing, to begin with, because this characteristic protects us from too many stimuli, excessive demands and overload. We develop routines that help us cope with everyday life without having to expend a lot of thought and energy. We build a microcosm around ourselves, focusing on people and things in our immediate environment. We know our family and friends, our city and our work so well that we think we know how life works.

Sometimes, however, we find that things are not as simple as we would like to believe. Namely, when we encounter complex problems. Abruptly, we tend to realize that our individual view of the world can be one-sided. For example, we can feel quite uncomfortable when we realize that climate change is a real threat. Here, our microcosm with its usual solution patterns suddenly reaches its limits. We are faced with a problem that seems so complex and abstract that it can (and often does) make us feel overwhelmed.

But in this, there is creative power. In chaos lies the chance of creativity. Why? Because it forces us to step back from familiar perceptions. Because it allows us to see that our ‘individual’ world, to which we devote all our attention, is only a part of reality. And we see that we, as individuals, are a part of the whole of nature in its beauty. Changing our perspective from the individual details to the whole forms the basis for a way of thinking that aims to help solve problems in a more cohesive way: Holistic thinking.

What Is Holistic Thinking?

Holistic thinking means having a holistic approach by contemplating the bigger picture. "Holistic“ derives from the Greek word "holos", which stands for "whole" and "comprehensive". "Holistic" therefore, means "wholeness."

Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher, has a quote that provides a great description of how the holistic way of thinking works: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." To help explain the impact of this quote, let’s break the process down using a simple example:

• Collect all of the ‘parts’ of something - eg. building blocks.
• Sum them up by adding them together, ordering, and arranging them in a way that makes sense - eg. build up walls, create windows, and doors.
• After summing up the parts, we create a whole. - eg. a house
• However, the ‘whole’ (or in this case, the house) is more than that because we get more value and understanding through the ‘summing’ process. By adding these parts up together, we may now better understand: - Physical structures eg. the best way to build walls so they are insulated. - Scientific principles eg. balancing the weight of the house so gravity won't tear it down. - Human Impact eg. Once we move into the house, it becomes a home. We now have shelter, security, and an increased likelihood of survival.

By summing these parts, we have received so much more - the intangible assets like understanding, value, and meaning - about the whole that was not available to its parts alone. The holistic approach leads us to truly appreciate and comprehend the sum of parts, thus making it "more than".

How is Holistic Thinking Applied?

Holistic thinking can be applied to many systems; such as biological, social, mental, economic or spiritual systems.

It is a way of thinking that has been practiced by many indigenous people for many, many years - especially when it comes to health and wellness (an example of biological, mental, and spiritual systems). Whatsmore, some traditional health care systems that are rooted in holistic principles, such as the Ancient Indian Ayurveda and Amazonian Shamanism, are still practiced today!

One of the famous personalities associated with a holistic vision was Leonardo Da Vinci, the well-known Italian painter of the Mona Lisa, living in the Renaissance. He is admired by the world for his multidisciplinary approach to connecting logic and creativity. His holistic perspective of knowledge gathering was based on thinking beyond limits and resulted in iconic creative expression that has stood the test of time.

Holism was also the core of the worldview of another famous individual - Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist and explorer. He didn’t see organisms, geological structures, weather phenomena, or human activities as detached; but as interacting entities of a larger complex system. He shaped the scientific perception of how everything is connected. Both Da Vinci and von Humboldt showed with their interdisciplinary approach how existing ideas and new concepts complement each other.

From ancient practices to famous personalities, the application and outcomes of holistic thinking is timeless. And this is most likely because this way of thinking stems from something bigger; Holism.

The Significance of Holism

“Holism (noun): the idea that the whole of something must be considered in order to understand its different parts” - Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

While clearly defined by man, Holism is by no means a thought construct of man. Nature exemplifies and dictates holism to us; every part needs the whole and the whole needs every part. Balance, cooperation, symbiosis and synergy defines life. From animate and inanimate nature to ecosystems, physiology of organisms to climate or social interactions - every single piece of a system affects the others and the whole.

This complexity becomes particularly clear when we consider the big challenges of today. The major challenges humanity is facing are on a global scale. If we look at climate change, for example, we often think of industry and mobility. The fires in the Amazon rainforest? The (majorly illegal) deforestation of the rainforest for the cultivation of palm oil or soy and loss of biodiversity? Corruption, the displacement of the local population or conflicts with indigenous groups? All of these aspects are also defined as climate change.

It’s not possible to break the world down into its components. Whether it is climate change, mass poverty or mass extinction – there are no simple solutions to global crises. Holistic thinking makes us realise the complexity of all of the issues we face. It aims to help us to identify different perspectives and needs. Furthermore, it helps us to develop and create long-term solutions for these global challenges. Creativity, interdisciplinarity, participation and collaboration are important prerequisites to try to achieve this.

The United Nations established a plan of action for sustainable development, known as the 2030 Agenda , and is an example of a holistic approach to multilateral sustainability policy. The agenda is based on the three dimensions model of sustainability: economy, society and the environment, which are interrelated. The Agenda is broken down into Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , which are considered universal and apply equally to all countries when striving for a balance between the three dimensions.

Holistic thinking is the prerequisite to the 2030 Agenda and is a necessary consequence of the cooperation between all countries working towards the SDGs. It’s the key to tackling our global challenges.

WeFuture Global’s guide to holistic thinking

Many people have learned to solve a problem where it appears visibly and tangibly for everyone. While this approach may well lead to initial successes – these are not long-lasting, since the core of the problem is often hidden at first glance.

For example, In order to contribute to the fight against climate change by reducing carbon emissions, it makes sense to use the bicycle more often than a car. But, if we really want to make a difference, we should look further than just at one piece of the puzzle and adopt a holistic approach. This can be done in many ways, such as questioning our own consumption in all areas of life (not just with personal transportation), taking a look at the sustainable practices implemented on other sides of the globe, and increasing the pressure on businesses and politicians to implement sustainable practices, to name a few.

Looking at the details is not wrong – but it’s not enough either. Holistic thinking goes beyond, it means breaking free from your mindset. This requires awareness, consideration and communication. But how to put this into practice?

To assist our community in developing this important skill, we have developed the WeFuture Global guideline to help our community think holistically.

The WeFuture Global Guideline to Holistic Thinking

Step 1. awareness.

• First, take a step back from what you are doing.
• Change your perspective from detail-oriented to the whole.
• Define the exact problems / challenges.
• Define the overall objective / the end-goal.

Step 2. Consideration

• Consider and define the individual parts of the overall system.
• Look for recurring patterns and interfaces.
• See how the interfaces affect the overall objective.
• Define your role in the overall system.
• Search for the lever (area or action) with the greatest impact.

Step 3. Communication

• Showcase the importance of the single to all partners in the system.
• Facilitate and implement new and stronger relationships.

Holistic thinking is a continuous process of changing perspectives, brainstorming and critical questioning. By that, it forms the basis for decisions on concrete action and next steps.

It is of fundamental importance to identify the real problem first. It is worthwhile to pause and get an overall view: Look at the whole instead of single details, push comprehension instead of actionism and focus on strategic thinking instead of operational hectic. By looking closely at the interrelationships, the system's biggest levers can be identified. And only those will affect a real change. During the entire process, it is always important to critically question the solution statements and yourself.

Holistic World Conservation

The holistic approach makes us realize that we humans ourselves are a part of the whole. It not only makes each of us responsible but also empowers us to make a difference. Just like in a huge ecosystem, everyone and everything can understand that the overall result is bigger than individual contributions. Holistic thinking is the core of world conservation.

To solve interrelated problems, we need to work together. Individuals, civil society organizations and the private sector are indispensable for the success of world conservation as innovation can and does arise from the collaboration of these entities. If we want to change a system, we need to work on all levels. Therefore we need a strong network of symbiotic relationships, varying expertise and sector access. We need to identify the right problems, understand the connections, and each of us needs to be aware of our role in complex challenges.

Through the holistic thinking approach, we can lose the fear of complexity and be empowered to make a difference. By understanding that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, we can learn to look at problems differently and change perspectives, allowing us and our way of thinking to evolve. The holistic way of thinking can transform our lives as we question our attitudes and gain inspiration to break out of recurring patterns in our everyday life. And by collaborating with all members and groups within society, we can innovate sustainable solutions that contribute to impactful world conservation.

Be open to change. Strive for balance. Think beyond.

To become a part of the change, see all the ways that you can contribute to wefuture global..

Related posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science

Julie Zahle and Finn Collin (eds.), Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science, Springer, 2014, 255pp., $129.00 (hbk), ISBN 9783319053431.

Reviewed by Phillip Honenberger, Philadelphia Area Center for History of Science

Are social phenomena better explained in terms of the characteristics of individual human beings, or in terms of the characteristics of groups or collectives? Are all social-level entities and events identical to some set of individual-level entities and events, or are social-level entities and events ever "more than the sum" of their individual-level parts? Traditionally, those who opt for the first of these options are called "individualists," while those who opt for the second are called "holists." The present collection of essays by contemporary philosophers of social science provides a state-of-the-art introduction to recent moves in the long-standing debate between adherents of these positions, as well as recent thinking about related questions, such as the definition of and distinction between the individual and the social; the meaning and validity of the idea of higher and lower levels of composition; the understanding of individual agency, including discussion of rational choice and game theory, as well as new pragmatist and ecological models; whether and in what sense groups can be agents; and how explanation in the social sciences ought to be understood and evaluated. The volume includes essays both from veteran philosophers of social science (Daniel Little, Philip Pettit, Harold Kincaid, and Mark Risjord) and early and mid-career contributors to the field (Julie Zahle, Finn Collin, Brian Epstein, Dave Elder-Vass, András Szigeti, Petri Ylikoski, Jeroen Van Bouwel, Mathew McCubbins, and Mark Turner).

The modern holism-individualism debate has its origins in the formative development of modern social science itself, in the work (for instance) of G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, and Herbert Spencer. The tension played out in an especially influential way in two widely publicized controversies: the debate between Émile Durkheim and Gabriel Tarde regarding "social facts," and F. A. Hayek's and Karl Popper's attacks on the "holism" of various mid-20 th -century social science traditions (Lukes 1968, 1973; Zahle 2007). Following upon these debates, discussion of the issue appeared in a number of academic journals in philosophy and sociology. This literature fed into the professional canon of Anglophone "philosophy of social science," a field coming close to its contemporary shape in the 1950s-1980s. This era saw the emergence of debates about the reducibility of the social to the individual, as well as about the putative need for mechanism-based explanations of social phenomena, in the social sciences (see Zahle 2007 for review). It is the later, professionalized phases of the debate to which the new volume seeks to make a contribution. Probably the most advanced discussion of its theme on the academic market today, this collection also provides an excellent introduction to many themes in contemporary analytic philosophy of social science in general. Nonetheless, the book displays some weaknesses. In what follows I first recount and discuss the contents of the essays individually, then briefly discuss one weakness of the volume as a whole.

The editors organize the papers into two groups: those focused on the ontology of individuals and societies, and those focused on questions of social science methodology (especially theories of explanation). In accordance with this breakdown, they summarize the main questions of the volume as follows: "[1] What is the ontological status of social phenomena and, as part of this, their relationship to individuals? [2] To what extent may, and should, social scientific explanations focus on individuals and social phenomena respectively?" (1-2). While this is a perfectly reasonable way of organizing the papers, I will discuss the papers in a slightly different order here, to suggest another way of thinking about them.

Two useful observations that emerge from a number of papers in the volume are, first, that what counts as an "individualist" or "holist" account is itself a contested matter; and, second, that some self-ascribed "holist" accounts take forms very similar or even consistent with what other authors describe as "individual" accounts, and vice versa. These observations motivate efforts to carefully distinguish among the positions that have been called "individualist" or "holist," so as to effectively track the actual theoretical consequences of, and arguments for and against, one or another position within this variety. Though the precise distinctions are often drawn slightly differently from one essay to the next, a few of the more common and important distinctions are those between

(a) the question of whether or not individuals are socially constituted (b) the question of whether or not individuals are socially constrained (c) the question of whether or not social-level entities and events are reducible to  individual-level entities and events (d) the question of whether or not social entities (groups, etc.) can be agents (e) ontological vs. methodological formulations of the distinction

Some individualists have given a "yes" answer to (a), while giving a "no" answer to (b) and/or (c). (See Pettit, Little, and discussion by Zahle.) Methodological holists, however, often suppose that a "yes" answer to (a) is itself a concession to holism (Elder-Vass). This disagreement is partly merely terminological, but also potentially substantive. Another disagreement concerns whether a "yes" answer to (d) entails a "yes" answer to (b), with Pettit arguing that it does not, and Szigeti arguing that it does. Epstein's essay articulates and defends a variety of individualism that does not hold social phenomena to be "built" out of individuals (as individualist accounts usually do), but rather to be "anchored" in beliefs or practices common to individuals in the group. Epstein offers David Hume's "conventions" and John Searle's "institutional facts" as examples. Epstein's analysis of the structure of various possible anchoring relations, and their implications for the individualism-holism debate, deserves more attention than I can give it here. The essay leaves me wondering, however, when and how individual beliefs or practices become common enough to count as "social" on an anchor individualist account; how the identity of social facts is to be determined under conditions of change or breakdown in these facts; and what justifies the correlation between individual facts and social facts that one or another anchor individualist answer to these questions would (seemingly) have to draw. As an alternative to familiar "levels-based" views of micro-macro relations, Ylikoski suggests a "scale-based" view wherein we address micro-macro distinctions (including the distinction between individuals and social wholes) in terms of the size of the entities appealed to within an account or explanation. Human individuals are physically smaller than groups and societies, for instance. Two interesting consequences of the shift that Ylikoski recommends are (i) a reconstrual of the micro-macro relation as context-relative (thus eliding problems regarding the specification of a "lowest level") and (ii) recognition of cases wherein relatively small ("micro") events can have effects on relatively large ("macro") systems, and vice versa: the mosquito that initiates an outbreak of yellow fever, for instance, or the effect of U.S. tax policy on the investment decisions of an individual taxpayer. Ylikoski's analysis is elegant and brilliant. Because "levels-based" thinking is (admittedly confusingly) also associated with other distinctions, however -- such as the greater or lesser generality of claims made at different levels -- I suggest that levels-based discourse ought not be thrown out too callously. Pettit's essay provides a usefully condensed recapitulation of arguments he has presented elsewhere in more detail. Pettit distinguishes three different controversial positions relevant to the "individualism-holism" question: "individualism," the view that social phenomena do not compromise individual agency; "atomism," the view that social properties are not part of the constitution of individual agents; and "singularism," the view that only single individuals, and not groups or collectives, can be agents. Pettit argues for individualism, anti-atomism, and anti-singularism. Szigeti takes issue with Pettit's view, arguing that individualism and anti-singularism are incompatible (113-114). In brief, Szigeti's argument is as follows: Theories of group agency must be causal or non-causal. Causal construals have the result that either (a) group-agency reduces to individual agency, or (b) group agency constrains individual agency. Non-causal construals of group agency, on the other hand, are hard to read as attributions of agency at all (since agency presumably involves the ability to have effects). While Szigeti's subtle arguments deserve fuller discussion, I suspect they rely on questionable assumptions about the uniformity of the structure of causality in different kinds of systems or processes (or, in different contexts of explanation).

Another major theme of the book concerns the relation between ontological and methodological conceptions of the individualism-holism debate, with some authors drawing methodological conclusions from ontological premises, and others arguing for a wholesale shift of the debate away from ontology and towards methodology. Elder-Vass argues in favor of holism over individualism on the basis of a relatively straightforward two-step argument: (1) an account of the ontology of individuals and social phenomena, and (2) an argument that certain relations of individuals can and will produce social phenomena that are not reducible to the features of those individuals and their relations. In (1), Elder-Vass takes care to argue that no features ascribed to "individuals" can be due to relations with other individuals, since, if they were, these "individuals" would have been already admitted to be socially constituted (and, hence, the methodological individualists would have lost from the outset). In (2), Elder-Vass argues that there are obviously social phenomena that cannot be articulated solely in terms of the so-delimited features of individuals. Hence, methodological individualism is a failure. Elder-Vass also introduces the notion of "norm circles" (which he has employed in more detail elsewhere) and gives an account of their (non-individualistically-reducible) causal powers. Zahle takes issue with Elder-Vass's argument, claiming that step (1) need not convince individualists. In particular, they will see no compelling reason to deny themselves a definition of "individuals" that holds them to be socially constituted (as noted above, this is a move made by several contemporary individualists: for instance, Little and Pettit). Zahle recommends an alternative to Elder-Vass's "ontological" criterion for evaluating the individualism-holism distinction, which she calls a "pragmatic" criterion, and formulates it as follows:

a good reason in support of a particular distinction between individualist and holist explanations . . . is a reason which shows, in an acceptable manner, that the distinction, drawn in the same manner in all contexts, is useful from the perspective of explaining the social world. (192)

I'm suspicious of the requirement that the distinction be "drawn in the same manner in all contexts." On what grounds should we insist on this? Maybe there are a variety of different distinctions that are conflated within traditional "holism-individualism" distinctions, but nonetheless each has independent validity. I'm also unsure about the terms "acceptable" and "useful," at least so far as they've been clarified and argued for here. Kincaid argues that some of the issues classified under the "individualism-holism" debate are dead (no longer interesting or fruitful), while others are live (interesting and fruitful). The former category includes (i) the question of the reducibility of social-level phenomena to individual-level phenomena, (ii) the question of whether appeal to individual-level mechanisms is necessary in order to adequately explain social-level phenomena (the so-called "micro-foundations" debate), and (iii) the question of whether or not society is a fiction. The live issues are focused on the question, "how holist or individualist can or must we be?" (147), in regard to puzzles that arise within one or another project of empirical social scientific research. Van Bouwel articulates and defends a model of explanation in the social sciences that is amenable to explanatory pluralism, and then argues for a move from ontological and monist construals of the individualism-holism debate, to a position that advances "explanatory pluralism" (161).

Another theme that runs through the volume in a strong way is the question of which models of individual agency would be sufficient or insufficient, illuminating or unilluminating, within social scientific inquiry. Nuanced discussions of pragmatist (Little), practice-theoretic (Risjord), ecological (Risjord), actor-network (Collin), and game-theoretic (Little, Risjord, McCubbins and Turner) models of individual agency provide a surprising and refreshing subsidiary theme of the volume. Little seeks to supplement his earlier work on individualism and micro-foundations by developing a sufficiently robust account of the agents making up the "individual level" in social explanations. To this end he provides a critical review of pragmatist models of agency and their sociological application -- in particular, work by John Dewey, G. H. Mead, Neil Gross, Andrew Abbott, Mark Granovetter, and Hans Joas. These models are contrasted with Aristotelian and rational-choice models. From this comparative perspective, the novelties and advantages of the various pragmatist options come into relief very nicely, but the limited scope of the contrast class may be partly responsible for the attractiveness and apparent novelty of the pragmatist positions. Collin reconstructs Bruno Latour's intellectual trajectory through the lens of the individualism-holism debate, including Latour's early-career ethnographies of science, his mid-career articulation of a metaphysics of "actants," and his late-career methodological reflections on actor-network-theory as a framework for social scientific research. Collin's main aim is to say to what extent and in what ways Latour has been a methodological individualist or holist at different points in his career, and what lessons we can draw, regarding this opposition, from his contributions and difficulties. Of course, this strategy involves reading Latour in terms of problems and questions he might not himself recognize as the central ones, but Collin mostly handles the risks associated with this procedure very effectively. Risjord provides an argument for a new "ecological" model of agency, wherein "to be an agent requires treating others as agents and responding to the joint possibilities for action provided by the environment" (219). Risjord begins with an analysis of the behavior of musicians in a jazz ensemble. He then argues that two common accounts of agency -- rational actor and practice-theoretic (the latter represented by Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens) -- cannot make sense of this behavior. Finally, he proposes an alternative model of agency that recognizes the characteristically human capacities of (a) recognizing environmental affordances in one's own case, (b) recognizing the affordances of other agents with whom one is in interaction, (c) thus being able to imaginatively trade roles with them and share a common "attunement" to a shared environment, and (d) being able to "meta-cognitively" reflect on "prior plans, explicit beliefs about the environment, knowledge of explicit rules, and interpretations" (234). This model's advantage over Bourdieu's and Giddens's accounts is that it is able to explain the possibility of change, including breakdowns and subsequent recoveries, of the coordinated action of groups of individuals. Its advantage over rational actor models is in sufficiently recognizing the role of the environment (broadly construed), rather than solely the representational states of the agents involved, in coordinated group action. McCubbins and Turner provide an experimentally-based argument against a variant on traditional game theory known as "behavioral game theory." As the behavioral expectations of traditional game theory have regularly been disconfirmed, behavioral game theory seeks to develop empirically-based qualifications of game-theoretic predictions and models. McCubbins and Turner point out that behavioral game theory's strategy relies on the assumption that individual preferences can be generalized from one context to others; they then report on new experiments supporting the conclusion that such preferences do not generalize.

Despite its many strengths, the book manifests some weaknesses. I will discuss just one of these here. The traditional opposition between social wholes and individuals rings a bit hollow to contemporary ears, not only because the poles of the opposition are only vaguely or ambiguously conceived, nor solely because one suspects that they are hardly mutually exclusive, but also because this opposition doesn't include, within the scope of potentially relevant factors it considers, those that are non-human or sub-personal (such as, for instance, human biology, ecology, and artifacts and technology). What happens in human affairs is very plausibly constrained, enabled, and affected by a combination of factors classifiable as ecological, biological, and technological, in addition to "individual" and "social." Since the first three kinds of factors operate in ways that cross-cut the individual-social distinction, and (on some conceptions of the individual or the social) are not included within the framework of that distinction at all, the inherited individualism-holism opposition, and the traditional question of the reducibility or non-reducibility of the social to the individual, are problematic in a way that most contributors to the volume never address. (A common pattern in the volume is to mention such factors as possibly relevant, but not to discuss them in any detail: for instance, regarding artifacts, pp. 58, 121-122, 143, 145-146, 212; regarding sub-personal factors, p. 150.) To some extent, Risjord's and Collin's essays, and a few paragraphs of McCubbins and Turner's (240), are a refreshing exception to this general criticism. For examples of alternative approaches to the relation between the individual and the social, which do not pass quietly over such sub-personal and non-human factors, see John Protevi's analysis of the relation between somatic, technological, and social processes "below," "alongside," and "above" the subject (respectively), in Protevi 2009 and 2013; Lenny Moss and Vida Pavesich's analysis of differential access to embodied skill-formation in Moss and Pavesich 2011; and Moss's critique of methodological individualism on the basis of a reconstruction of human evolutionary history (Moss 2014), which also points to the role of sub-personal social processes in the constitution of human individuality. REFERENCES Lukes, Steven. 1968. "Methodological Individualism Reconsidered." The British Journal of Sociology , Vol. 19 (2): 119-129. Lukes, Steven. 1973. Émile Durkheim, his Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study . London, UK: Penguin. Moss, Lenny, and Pavesich, Vida. 2011. "Science, Normativity, and Skill: Reviewing and Renewing the Anthropological Basis of Critical Theory." Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (2): 139-165.   Moss, Lenny. 2014. "Detachment and Compensation: Groundwork for a Metaphysics of 'Biosocial Becoming'." Philosophy and Social Criticism , 40 (1): 91-105. Protevi, John. 2009. Political Affect: Connecting the Social and the Somatic . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.   Protevi, John. 2013. Life, War, Earth: Deleuze and the Sciences . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Zahle, Julie. 2007. "Holism and Supervenience." In Stephen P. Turner and Mark Risjord (eds.), Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology . Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 311-341.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Holism?

How psychologists use holism to understand behavior

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Laura Porter

• In Psychology

In psychology, holism is an approach to understanding the human mind and behavior that focuses on looking at things as a whole. It is often contrasted with reductionism , which instead tries to break things down into their smallest parts. This approach suggests that we can only understand the parts when we view them in relation to the whole.

Overview of Holism

In terms of psychology, the holistic view suggests that it is important to view the mind as a unit, rather than trying to break it down into its individual parts. Each individual part plays its own important role, but it also works within an integrated system.

The basic principle of holism is that people are more than simply the sum of their parts. In order to understand how people think, the holistic perspective stresses that you need to do more than simply focus on how each individual component functions in isolation. Instead, psychologists who take this approach believe that it is more important to look at how all the parts work together.

Holism in Psychology

As an approach to understanding systems, holism is used in psychology as well as in other areas including medicine, philosophy, ecology, and economics. One key phrase that summarizes the key idea behind the holistic approach is that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts.”

The field of holistic medicine, for example, focuses on treating all aspects of a person's health including physical symptoms, psychological factors, and societal influences.  

In order to understand why people do the things they do and think the way they think, holism proposes that it is necessary to look at the entire person. Rather than focus on just one aspect of the problem, it is necessary to recognize that various factors interact and influence each other.

One reason why it is so important to consider the entire being is that the whole may possess emergent properties . These are qualities or characteristics that are present in the whole but cannot be observed by looking at the individual pieces.  

Consider the human brain, for example. The brain contains millions of neurons , but just looking at each individual neuron will not tell you what the brain can do. It is only by looking at the brain holistically, by looking at how all the pieces work together, that you can see how messages are transmitted, how memories are stored, and how decisions are made.

Even looking at other aspects of the brain such as the individual structures does not really tell the whole story. It is only when taking a more holistic approach that we are truly able to appreciate how all the pieces work together.

In fact, one of the earliest debates in the field of neurology centered on whether the brain was homogeneous and could not be broken down further (holism) or whether certain functions were localized in specific cortical areas (reductionism).

Today, researchers recognize that certain parts of the brain act in specific ways, but these individual parts interact and work together to create and influence different functions.

Uses for Holism

When looking at questions in psychology, researchers might take a holistic approach by considering how different factors work together and interact to influence the entire person. At the broadest level, holism would look at every single influence that might impact behavior or functioning.

A humanistic psychologist, for example, might consider an individual's environment (including where they live and work), their social connections (including friends, family, and co-workers), their background (including childhood experiences and educational level), and physical health (including current wellness and stress levels).

The goal of this level of analysis is to be able to not only consider how each of these variables might impact overall well-being but to also see how these factors interact and influence one another.

In other cases, holism might be a bit more focused. Social psychologists, for example, strive to understand how and why groups behave as they do. Sometimes groups react differently than individuals do, so looking at group behavior more holistically allows research to assess emergent properties that might be present.

Benefits of Holism

Just like the reductionist approach to psychology, holism has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, holism can be helpful at times when looking at the big picture allows the psychologist to see things they might have otherwise missed. In other cases, however, focusing on the whole might cause them to overlook some of the finer details.

Some of the key benefits of this perspective include:

It Incorporates Many Factors

One of the big advantages of the holistic approach is that it allows researchers to assess multiple factors that might contribute to a psychological problem. Rather than simply focusing on one small part of an issue, researchers can instead look at all of the elements that may play a role.

This approach can ultimately help them find solutions that address all of the contributing internal and external factors that might be influencing the health of an individual. This is sometimes more effective than addressing smaller components individually.

By looking at people holistically, health care providers can address all of the many factors that might affect how a person is feeling, including their mind, their body, and their environment.

It Looks at the Big Picture

When researching a topic, it's frequently helpful to step back and look at the big picture. Reductionism tends to focus solely on the trees, but holism allows psychologists to view the entire forest. This can be true of both the research and treatment of mental health issues.

When trying to help a client with symptoms of a psychiatric condition, for example, looking at the patient holistically allows mental health professionals to see all of the factors that affect the patient’s daily life, and also how the patient interacts with their environment. Using this type of approach, therapists are often better able to address individual symptoms.

Human behavior is complex, so explaining it often requires an approach that is able to account for this complexity. Holism allows researchers to provide a fully inclusive answer to difficult questions about how people think, feel, and behave.

Drawbacks of Holism

While holism has a number of key advantages, there are also some important drawbacks to consider. Some of these include:

It Tends to Be Non-Specific

When trying to solve a problem, it is often important to focus on a particular aspect of the issue in order to come up with a solution. Holism tends to be more generalized, which can sometimes make precision more difficult. Scientists, in particular, must be able to focus their research on clearly defined variables and hypotheses.

Looking at something too broadly can make it difficult to conduct tests using the scientific method, largely due to the fact that it incorporates so many varied factors and influences.

It Can Be Overly Complex

Because holism is so all-inclusive, it can make scientific investigations very challenging and complex. There may be many different variables to account for, as well as a plethora of potential interactions. This can make this approach unwieldy at times.

Examples of Holism

There are a number of examples in the field of psychology of how holism can be used to view the human mind and behavior. The early schools of thought, structuralism and functionalism , are good examples of reductionist and holistic views.

Structuralism focused on breaking down elements of behavior into their smallest possible components (reductionism), whereas functionalism focused on looking at things as a whole and considering the actual purpose and function of behaviors (holism).

Throughout history, there have been other perspectives and branches of psychology that have also taken a holistic approach.

Gestalt Psychology

Gestalt psychology is a school of thought that is rooted in holism. The Gestalt psychologists not only believed that human behavior needed to be viewed as a whole; they also worked to understand how the human mind itself uses a holistic approach to make sense of the world.

The Gestalt laws of perceptual organization , demonstrate that the ways in which individual items relate to one another can influence how we see them. When similar items are viewed together, the law of similarity, for example, suggests that people will perceive them as components of a whole.

This approach can also be applied to the treatment of mental health problems. Gestalt therapy is a person-centered approach to treatment that emerged from the Gestalt school of thought. Rather than breaking down aspects of a person's past to understand their current problem, this approach to therapy looks at all aspects of the individual's life in the here and now.

Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic psychology is a branch of psychology that emerged in the 1950s partially as a response to behaviorism. Where behaviorism had taken a reductionist approach to explain human behavior, humanist thinkers are more interested in looking at behavior holistically.

This approach to psychology looks at all of the factors that contribute to how people think and act, as well as how all of these different components interact.

Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs is one example of a humanistic theory that takes a holistic look at human motivation. This theory doesn't focus on any single aspect of motivation. Instead, it incorporates many aspects including environmental, social, and emotional influences.

Social Psychology

Social psychology tends to take a holistic approach since it considers individuals in their social context. In particular, this branch of psychology looks at how group behavior is often different than individual behavior, which is a good example of emergent properties and the sum being more than its parts.

Holism vs. Reductionism

One way to look at how holism and reductionism are used is to observe how these approaches might be applied when studying a specific psychological problem.

Imagine that researchers are interested in learning more about depression .

• A researcher using the holistic approach might instead focus on understanding how different contributing factors might interact, such as examining how thought patterns, social relationships, and neurotransmitter levels influence a person’s depression levels.
• A scientist using the reductionist approach might look at a highly specific factor that influences depression, such as neurotransmitter levels in the brain.

A Word From Verywell

Much of the appeal of holism lies in its ability to incorporate all of the elements that make us who we are. People are infinitely complex and varied, and holism is able to address all of the external and internal factors that influence our past, present, and future.

Different areas of psychology often tend to focus on either one approach or the other. While reductionism and holism are often pitted against one another, they both serve an important role in helping researchers better understand human psychology.

Michaelson V, Pickett W, King N, Davison C. Testing the theory of holism: A study of family systems and adolescent health .  Prev Med Rep . 2016;4:313–319. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.07.002

Freeman J. Towards a definition of holism .  Br J Gen Pract . 2005;55(511):154–155.

APA Dictionary of Psychology. Humanistic perspective .

APA Dictionary of Psychology. Gestalt psychology .

Goodwin, CJ. A History of Modern Psychology, 5th Edition. New York: Wiley.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Methodological Holism in the Social Sciences

The debate between methodological holists and methodological individualists concerns the proper focus of explanations in the social sciences: to what extent should social scientific explanations revolve around social phenomena and individuals, respectively? The discussion takes two main forms.

The most enduring debate surrounds the issue of dispensability. Methodological holists engaged in this debate defend the view that explanations that invoke social phenomena (e.g., institutions, social structures or cultures) should be offered within the social sciences: their use is indispensable. Explanations of this sort are variously referred to as holist, collectivist, social (-level), or macro (-level) explanations. They are exemplified by claims such as “the unions protested because the government wanted to lower the national minimum wage”, or “the rise in unemployment led to a higher crime rate”. Holist explanations may be contrasted with explanations that are expressed in terms of individuals, their actions, beliefs, desires, and the like. The latter are variously termed individualist, individual (-level), or micro (-level) explanations. They are illustrated by claims such as “Anna baked a cake because Susan wanted it”, or

as a result of individuals a , b , c , etc. losing their jobs, and feeling very frustrated about having little money and no job opportunities, the crime rate went up.

Methodological holists may or may not hold that individualist explanations should be offered in addition to holist explanations. Whatever methodological holists’ stand on this issue, they are opposed by methodological individualists who insist that individualist explanations alone should be provided within the social sciences, and thus, that holist explanations should be dispensed with.

The other, more recent dispute between methodological holists and individualists is concerned with the issue of microfoundations. Methodological holists involved in this debate defend the view that in some cases, purely holist explanations (i.e., explanations stated solely in terms of social phenomena) may stand on their own: they do not invariably need individual-level microfoundations. A purely holist explanation might be “the economic depression was the main reason why the war broke out”. Methodological holists may maintain that this explanation is fine as it stands; it need not be supplemented with further details specifying how the economic depression incited individuals to adopt certain beliefs, act in certain ways, etc., that in turn led to the outbreak of the war. Methodological individualists disagree, insisting that such additional accounts must always be provided.

Within philosophy and the social sciences, whether in the context of the dispensability or the microfoundations debate, proponents of methodological holism do not necessarily describe their position in such terms. In fact, this is seldom so within the social sciences. In certain cases, some alternative label is used, for example, when “explanatory holism” and “collectivism” are employed to denote the view that holist explanations are indispensable. In other cases, no label at all is attributed to one or both of the views that are here described as methodologically holist. In this entry, differences of terminology will be disregarded: the term “methodological holism” is used to describe both the thesis that holist explanations are indispensable, as well as the thesis that purely holist explanations do not always need individual-level microfoundations.

The methodological individualism-holism debate that concerns the proper focus of social scientific explanations is just one among several individualism-holism disputes. Most notably, there are individualism-holism debates about ontology, confirmation, and morality. Within these discussions, holism is the view that social phenomena exist sui generis , or in their own right (the ontological debate); that social scientific explanations need not always be confirmed by looking at what happens at the level of individuals (the debate on confirmation); and that moral responsibility may sometimes be ascribed to social entities such as groups (one version of the moral debate). It is perfectly possible, and in fact quite common, to subscribe to methodological holism in the sense defined in this entry without endorsing these other forms of holism. Though interesting, these debates will not be directly addressed here.

The following discussion of methodological holism consists of two parts. Sections 1 and 2 examine the dispensability debate, and Sections 3 and 4 consider the microfoundations debate. Both parts focus on methodological holists’ views—and arguments—in these disputes. For a characterization of methodological individualism, see the entry on methodological individualism .

1. The Dispensability Debate

2.1 the argument from social phenomena as causes, 2.2 the argument from the impossibility of translation, 2.3 the argument from the impossibility of intertheoretic reduction, 2.4 the argument from explanatory regress, 2.5 the argument from differing explanatory interests, 2.6 the argument from pragmatic concerns, 3. the microfoundations debate, 4.1 the argument from underlying social-level mechanisms, 4.2 the argument from mechanism regress, 4.3 the argument from explanatory practices, 4.4 the argument from non-mechanistic explanatory considerations, other internet resources, related entries.

The defense of methodological holism dates back to at least the turn of the nineteenth century. Around this time, Emile Durkheim advocated the indispensability of holist explanations in a number of writings (see e.g., Durkheim 1938[1895], 1951[1897]). He famously stated that the

determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness . (Durkheim 1938 [1895]: 110—italics in the original)

His work is typically juxtaposed to that of Max Weber, who is regarded as the main proponent of methodological individualism during this period. In the subsequent history of the debate, there are two phases that particularly stand out. The first began around the 1950s, when Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and J.W.N. Watkins argued ardently in support of methodological individualism. In response, Ernest Gellner, Leon G. Goldstein, Maurice Mandelbaum, and others maintained that there were alternative ways of cashing out, and defending, methodological holism that were left unscathed by Hayek’s, Popper’s and Watkins’ objections (see Gellner 1973 [1956]; Goldstein 1973a [1956], 1973b [1958]; Mandelbaum 1955, 1973 [1957]. They all appear in O’Neill 1973, which also contains other important contributions from this period).

The second significant period stretches from around the 1980s up until today. From the perspective of methodological holism, this phase is marked by the appearance of a number of new, or new versions of, arguments in support of the indispensability of holist explanations. In this phase, seminal contributions to the dispensability debate were made by Roy Bhaskar, Alan Garfinkel, Harold Kincaid, Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit to mention just a few (see Bhaskar 1979; Garfinkel 1981; Kincaid 1996, 1997; Jackson and Pettit 1992a, 1992b). The following section focuses on the most important arguments advanced during this last—and still unfolding—period. (See Zahle and Collin 2014a for a collection of papers from this period.) The remainder of the present section is concerned with the further introduction of the positions at play within the dispensability debate. As noted above, special attention will be paid to the methodological holist stance.

There are three basic views within the debate:

Strong methodological holism : Holist explanations alone should be offered within the social sciences; they are indispensable. Individualist explanations may, and should, be dispensed with. Moderate methodological holism : In certain cases, holist explanations should be advanced; in other cases individualist explanations should be advanced; both holist and individualist explanations are indispensable within the social sciences. Methodological individualism : Individualist explanations alone should be put forward within the social sciences; they are indispensable. Holist explanations may, and should, be dispensed with.

Among these positions, the thesis of strong methodological holism has enjoyed relatively little support and today it has few, if any, proponents. The vast majority of methodological holists are of the moderate variety. Accordingly, the debate has mainly played itself out between the moderate holist view and the individualist position. Because both parties agree that individualist explanations should be advanced, their efforts have first and foremost been directed toward the question of whether holist explanations are indispensable or not.

The three basic positions may be further characterized in three ways. First, each relies on a distinction between holist and individualist explanations. This raises the issue of exactly how to differentiate between these two categories of explanation. The answer to this question is a matter of dispute among participants in the debate. One possible formulation of the distinction is that holist explanations appeal to social phenomena, whereas individualist explanations invoke individuals, their actions, beliefs, etc. To elaborate further on this suggestion, it may be specified that holist explanations contain social terms, descriptions, or predicates set apart by their reference to, and focus on, social phenomena. By contrast, individualist explanations contain individualist terms, descriptions, or predicates distinguished by their reference to, and focus on, individuals, their actions, beliefs, desires, etc.

One issue still left open by this supplementary characterization is how to understand the notion of a social phenomenon. Methodological holists commonly take the following list of items to exemplify social phenomena: (a) Organizations—like universities, firms, and churches; (b) social processes—like revolutions and economic growth; (c) statistical properties—like the literacy rate or the suicide rate within a group; (d) cultures and traditions—like the Mayan culture or a democratic tradition; (e) beliefs, desires, and other mental properties ascribed to groups—like the government’s desire to stay in power; (f) norms and rules—like the proscription of sex with family members and the rule requiring cars to drive on the right-hand side of the road; (g) properties of social networks—like their density or cohesion; (h) social structures, typically identified with one or more of the items already listed; and (i) social roles—like being a bus driver or a nurse. The list includes social phenomena in the form of social entities, social processes, and social properties. The latter are first and foremost properties ascribed to social groups or constellations of individuals. Yet social properties also include certain features ascribed to individuals, such as an individual’s social role. These properties are social properties, it is sometimes suggested, because they presuppose the social organization of individuals, or the existence of social entities. (For a discussion of different kinds of social properties, see also Ylikoski 2012, 2014.)

Methodological individualists typically disagree that all the items listed above constitute social phenomena. They contend that some exemplify individualist properties because they are properties of individuals. For instance, some methodological individualists maintain that norms and rules are individualist properties since they express individuals’ beliefs as to how they should—or should not—act. Likewise, many hold that social roles are individualist properties because they are ascribed to individuals. (For holist defenses of the view that social roles should be classified as social properties, see e.g., Kincaid 1997; Lukes 1968; Elder-Vass 2010; Hodgson 2007.) In this fashion, the dispute about how to distinguish between holist and individualist explanations translates into a difference in opinion concerning what constitutes social phenomena. Methodological holists consider more phenomena to be social and hence they classify more explanations as holist, whereas methodological individualists view fewer phenomena as social, the result being that they categorize fewer explanations as holist and more as individualist. Due to such disagreements, methodological holists and individualists often talk past one another: each offers arguments presupposing a distinction between holist and individualist explanations that is at odds with that relied upon by their opponent (see Zahle 2003, 2014).

The question of how to differentiate between holist and individualist explanations may also be approached by drawing on the analysis of explanations as consisting of an explanans, i.e., what does the explaining, and an explanandum, i.e., what is in need of explanation. Consider the following options: (a) both the explanans and the explanandum are expressed in terms of social phenomena (e.g., the government’s decision to lower the national minimum wage led to protests from the unions); (b) the explanans is stated in terms of social phenomena while the explanandum is described in terms of individuals, their actions, etc. (e.g., the government’s decision to lower the national minimum wage resulted in several individuals writing public letters of protest); (c) both the explanans and the explanandum are expressed in terms of individuals, their actions, etc. (e.g., because the small children started crying, a number of people came over to help out); (d) the explanans is stated in terms of individuals, their actions, etc. while the explanandum is described in terms of social phenomena (e.g., the fact that many individuals withdrew their money at once had the result that the bank exhausted its cash reserves). With these options in mind, three different ways of circumscribing holist and individualist explanations may be registered:

All three conceptions have been advocated in the dispensability debate. Among them, the first position is the most inclusive, while also being the most widespread.

Second, the basic positions of strong methodological holism, moderate methodological holism and methodological individualism can be further characterized by noting that holist and individualist explanations may be categorized into different types. For instance, both holist and individualist explanations may be classified according to whether they are functional, intentional, or straightforward causal explanations. This point may be illustrated in relation to holist explanations. Holist explanations of the functional variety state that the continued existence of a social phenomenon is explained by its function or effect. For instance, it may be suggested that “the state continues to exist because it furthers the interests of the ruling class”. In the past, but no longer today, methodological holism has often been associated with the advancement of holist explanations of this type. (On the use of functional holist explanations, see e.g., Macdonald and Pettit 1981: 131ff.) Intentional holist explanations purport to explain an action ascribed to a group by reference to the group’s reasons for performing it. For example, it may be affirmed that “the government decided to call a general election in May because it believed this would increase its chances of being reelected”. (On the use of intentional holist explanations, see e.g., Tollefsen 2002; List and Pettit 2011.) Nowadays, both functional and intentional explanations are often regarded as special kinds of causal explanation to be distinguished from more straightforward causal explanations. This latter kind of causal explanation is illustrated by assertions such as “the rise in unemployment led to an increase in crime”, or “the government’s lowering of the taxes led to an increase in the consumption of luxury goods”.

Alternatively, to note an additional example, holist and individualist explanations may be categorized by reference to their focus. In this spirit, holist explanations may be classified according to whether they focus on, say, the statistical properties of social groups, on social organizations and their actions, and so on. Likewise, individualist explanations may be categorized according to whether, say, their descriptions of individuals are informed by rational choice models, by accounts that stress how actions are largely habitual and based on various forms of tacit knowledge, etc. The advocacy of a basic position may go together with the favoring of certain types of holist or individualist explanations over others.

Third, the positions of strong methodological holism, moderate methodological holism and methodological individualism can be further explicated by observing that each stance may either be formulated as a claim about explanations in general, that is, all explanations advanced within the social sciences, or as pertaining to final explanations only, that is, explanations that are satisfactory rather than being merely tolerable in the absence of better ones. Sometimes methodological individualists tend to regard the discussion as revolving solely around final explanations. Accordingly, they maintain that though holist explanations may be advanced, they are only tolerable as stopping points that are temporarily acceptable in anticipation of individualist explanations that, alone, will qualify as final explanations. Among both strong and moderate methodological holists, it is less commonly maintained that the debate concerns final explanations only.

There are additional dimensions along which the three basic positions within the dispensability debate may be clarified. For instance, each stance is compatible with different views of what constitutes an explanation, different notions of causation, and so on. Occasionally, the divergence of opinion with respect to these issues will surface in the discussion that follows.

2. Why Holist Explanations are Indispensable

This section examines some of the most important arguments offered in support of the claim that holist explanations are indispensable within the social sciences. All the arguments have been advocated by moderate methodological holists. Only the first version of the first argument has also, and perhaps mainly, been propounded by strong methodological holists. The arguments should all be read as defenses of the indispensability of holist explanations understood as final explanations.

The argument from social phenomena as causes takes it that holist explanations are indispensable if social phenomena are causally effective. The basic structure of the argument is as follows. First, a characterization of social phenomena as causally effective is presented. Next, it is maintained that in order to explain the events generated by the causally effective social phenomena, holist explanations must be offered: holist explanations alone state how social phenomena bring about certain events. Lastly, it is concluded that since the events brought about by social phenomena should not be left unexplained, holist explanations are indispensable. The argument comes in various versions set apart by the way in which they characterize social phenomena as causally effective.

According to one line of reasoning, social entities like nations and societies have causal powers that are independent of, and override, the causal powers of the individuals who comprise these entities. For instance, it is held that nations develop in such a way so as to realize some goal, yet without the implicated individuals having any influence on this development. Alternatively, it is contended that societal structures may ensure that individuals perform certain functions in society; the individuals have no choice in this matter. However specified, social phenomena that have these independent and overriding causal powers produce effects that cannot be accounted for by offering individualist explanations; individuals are simply not causally responsible for these effects. The explanation of such social phenomena is only possible by way of holist explanations that lay out how the phenomena brought about the effects in question.

The contention that social entities have independent and overriding causal powers is often ascribed to Comte, Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Today the claim enjoys very few adherents. One important reason for this is that the claim is regarded as incompatible with the widely held view that social phenomena are noncausally determined by individuals and their properties, and sometimes by material artifacts too. Particularly since the 1980s, the notions of supervenience, realization, and emergence have received a lot of attention as ways of spelling out this non-causal dependency relation between social phenomena, on the one hand, and individuals and their properties, on the other. These notions have served as the basis for alternative versions of the argument from social phenomena as causes.

Consider first the notions of supervenience and realization. Supervenience is a relationship between properties, kinds, or facts. Roughly speaking, social properties supervene upon individualist properties if and only if there can be no change at the level of social properties unless there is also a change at the level of individualist properties. Otherwise put, the individualist properties fix the social properties. Too see how this works, assume that a football club supervenes on a constellation of individuals with certain beliefs, bearing certain relations to each other, and so on. This being the case, the football club cannot transform into a golf club, say, unless the individuals change some of their beliefs, the relations they stand in, or the like. The individuals’ beliefs, relations, etc. fix the property of their being a football club. The notion of supervenience is often used interchangeably with the notion of realization. Thus, it is said that a constellation of individuals with certain beliefs, relationships, etc. realizes the property of being a football club. Several moderate methodological holists have, in varying ways, expanded on the account of social properties as supervenient properties by presenting considerations in support of supervenient social properties being, in certain cases, causally effective properties (see e.g., Kincaid 1997, 2009; List and Spiekermann 2013; Sawyer 2003, 2005). Their reflections are a response to the so-called exclusion argument, which states that supervenient properties are epiphenomenal because all the causal work is done by the properties that they supervene upon (on this argument, see e.g., Kim 2005). Here is how Christian List and Kai Spiekermann purport to establish that some supervenient social properties are causally effective (List and Spiekermann 2013).

List and Spiekermann begin by appealing to the difference-making or counterfactual conception of causation, which asserts that “a property C (within a system of interest) is the cause of another property E if and only if C systematically makes a difference to E ” (2013: 636). By implication, a supervenient social property, S , qualifies as a cause of E , when S makes a systematic difference to E . This means that, other things being equal, if S occurred E would do so too, and that if S did not occur, then neither would E . Now assume that S is microrealization-robust: S would also have brought about E if it had been realized by a compound of individualist properties other than the one that actually realizes it. In situations of this sort, the compound of individualist properties that realizes S does not make a systematic difference to E . While it is the case that if the particular compound occurred then so would E , it is not the case that if the compound did not occur, E would not occur either. Hence it is S , rather than the compound of individualist properties realizing S , that qualifies as the cause of E . List and Spiekermann underline that in these circumstances, a holist explanation—that is, an explanation describing how a given supervenient social property brought about some effect—is needed.

As an anecdotal illustration of these points, they refer to the failed climate summit in Copenhagen in 2010 (2013: 637). They suggest that the summit failed at least in part because there were so many parties, and no common interest. Moreover, they note that these—and other—social properties of the situation are microrealization-robust: even had they been realized by individuals with somewhat different individualist properties, the social properties would have still resulted in a failed summit. The social properties of the meeting should thus be regarded as the cause of the failure; that is, a holist explanation must be offered in order to explain why the summit was unsuccessful.

Turn now to the notion of emergence. While emergent properties are sometimes regarded as identical to, or as a special class of, supervenient properties, emergent properties may also be differently characterized. These alternative specifications of social properties as emergent properties have similarly served as the basis for insisting that holist explanations are indispensable. Currently, this line of reasoning is often associated with the social scientific school of Critical Realism, founded by Roy Bhaskar and further developed by many others (see e.g., Archer 1995, 2000; Bhaskar 1979, 1982; Elder-Vass 2007, 2010, 2014). Main representatives of the movement have offered a variety of specifications of the notion of emergence. Among these, Dave Elder-Vass’ account will be briefly discussed.

According to Elder-Vass, social entities like firms and universities are composed of individuals (and sometimes material things as well) that stand in certain relations to one another (Elder-Vass 2007: 31). In virtue of being composed, at a given moment in time, of interrelated individuals, social entities have various causally effective social properties. Most notably, they have emergent social properties, of which there are two kinds. The first is constituted by emergent social properties that are ascribed to social entities as wholes. These are exemplified by a government’s power to introduce a new tax, or a quartet’s ability to deliver a harmonized performance. The second kind consists in emergent social properties that are ascribed to individuals. These are illustrated by a boss’s power to hire or fire employees. Individuals have these properties in virtue of being interrelated so as to form a social entity, and that’s why they constitute emergent social properties (Elder-Vass 2010: 74). Individuals who form part of social entities have non-emergent properties too. These are the causally effective properties, like the ability to read or talk, which individuals have independently of being, at a given moment in time, part of a social entity. From these reflections, Elder-Vass contends, it follows that holist explanations cannot be dispensed with. The effects of emergent social properties should be explained. To this end, it is necessary to offer holist explanations—that is, explanations that state how a social property partially brought about some effect. Individualist explanations are not up to this task inasmuch as they are confined to describing how individuals, in virtue of their non-emergent properties, partially brought about some effect. Simply pointing to the properties that individuals have independently of being, at a given moment in time, part of social entities, does not add up to an explanation of the effects of emergent social properties (see 2010: 66).

Contemporary moderate methodological holists largely agree that social phenomena are non-causally determined by individuals and their properties, and occasionally by material artifacts too. As illustrated in the foregoing, some defend the claim that thus conceived, social phenomena are causally effective, while such defenses often depend heavily on the particular notion of causation espoused. Many moderate methodological holists, however, see no need for arguments in support of social phenomena being causally effective. They simply assume this to be the case while pursuing alternative strategies in the attempt to establish that holist explanations are indispensable.

The argument from the impossibility of translation takes it that the indispensability of holist explanations is a matter of these explanations being untranslatable into individualist explanations. The argument begins by observing that holist explanations contain social descriptions or concepts, and goes on to note that the meaning of social descriptions cannot be captured by specifications that contain descriptions of individuals alone. Or, put otherwise, social concepts are not reductively definable solely in terms of individualist concepts. As a result, it is impossible to translate holist explanations into individualist ones: holist explanations cannot be replaced by individualist explanations through translation. Finally, the argument concludes that since the events accounted for by holist explanations should not go unexplained holist explanations are indispensable.

The argument from the impossibility of translation is famously presented by Maurice Mandelbaum in a paper from 1955 (Mandelbaum 1955). Here Mandelbaum defines social concepts as concepts that refer to forms of organization within a society. He remarks that concepts of this sort “cannot be translated into psychological [i.e., individualist] concepts without remainder ” (1955: 310—italics in the original). In order to drive this point home, Mandelbaum considers the social concept of a bank teller. In order to specify what a bank teller is, it is necessary to invoke the social concept of a bank. The definition of a “bank”, in turn, must contain social concepts such as “legal tender” and “contract”. And these social concepts, too, can only be defined in ways that involve yet other social concepts, such that the definition of a social concept inevitably contains other social concepts. Given that the distinctive feature of holist explanations is their very containment of social concepts, these explanations can thus not be translated into, and as such replaced by, individualist explanations.

Mandelbaum’s argument, including his example of the bank teller, is widely cited in subsequent contributions to the debate between moderate methodological holists and individualists (see e.g., Bhargava 1992; Danto 1973 [1962]; Epstein 2015; Gellner 1973 [1956]; Goldstein 1973b [1958]; James 1984; Kincaid 1986, 1997; Zahle 2003). However, few moderate methodological holists have followed Mandelbaum in holding that holist explanations are indispensable if they indeed cannot be translated into individualist explanations.

The argument from the impossibility of intertheoretic reduction presumes that holist explanations cannot be dispensed with if holist theories are irreducible to individualist ones. The argument rests on the view that holist explanations draw on social theories, whereas individualist explanations involve individualist theories. From within this context, it is argued that social theories are oftentimes irreducible to, and hence irreplaceable by, individualist theories. Accordingly, when holist explanations make use of irreducible social theories, they cannot be substituted by individualist explanations that appeal to individualist theories. Since the events that are explained by appeal to irreducible social theories should not go unexplained, holist explanations are therefore indispensable.

Typically, discussions of the argument rely on some version of the Nagelian model of intertheoretic reduction. The model conceives of theories as statements issued mainly in the form of laws. Adapted to the present focus, it requires that two conditions be fulfilled in order to reduce a social theory to an individualist one. The first requirement is the condition of connectability, which must be met because it is assumed that holist theories are distinguished by their use of social predicates or descriptions, whereas individualist theories are characterized by containing individualist predicates or descriptions only. Following one common interpretation, the condition states that the social predicates in the social theory to-be-reduced must be linked, on a one-to-one basis, to individualist descriptions in the reducing individualist theory. The resulting bridge laws, as they are called, express that the linked descriptions are co-extensive, that is, that they have the same reference, in a law-like manner. (Note that this is a weaker condition than the demand considered in 2.2 , requiring that the meaning of social terms must be captured by specifications that contain descriptions of individuals only.) The condition of connectability implies that if, say, the social term “church” occurs in the social theory to-be-reduced, then it must be demonstrated that this term is co-extensive, in a law-like manner, with a single individualist description of individuals and their properties as realizing a church. Once this condition has been met, the second requirement, the condition of derivability, should be fulfilled. It states that the social theory to-be-reduced must be deduced from, and in that sense explained by, the reducing individualist theory, plus the bridge laws.

Moderate methodological holists have primarily focused on demonstrating that social theories cannot be reduced to individualist theories because of difficulties that relate to meeting the requirement of connectability. The most prominent argument to this effect is the argument from multiple realization (other arguments include, e.g., Kincaid 1996, Wahlberg 2019). The argument from multiple realization originates from within philosophy of mind, from whence it was developed into a generalizable argument against intertheoretic reduction (see Putnam 1967 and Fodor 1974). In the 1980s, it began to appear as an argument against the possibility of reducing social to individualist theories (see e.g., Kincaid 1986, 1996, 1997; Little 1991; Rios 2005; Sawyer 2002, 2005, Wright et al. 1992; Tollefsen 2002, 2015).

The argument begins by noting that social properties supervene on, or are realized by, individualist properties. It is then pointed out that this relationship between social and individualist properties is compatible with social properties being realizable not only by a single compound of individualist properties, but by different—in fact indefinitely many—compounds of individualist properties. An empirical claim is made next, asserting that many social properties are indeed multiply realizable. This point is typically supported by way of example. For instance, Kincaid lists several social predicates such as “revolution”, “bureaucracy”, and “peer group”, and remarks that “any number of different relations between individuals, individual psychological states, beliefs, etc. could realize the referent of these terms” (Kincaid 1986: 497). In a similar vein, Keith Sawyer states that “‘being a church’ could be realized in disjunctive [and hence multiple] ways in different cultures and social groups” (Sawyer 2002: 550). Finally, it is observed that the condition of connectability cannot be met whenever social theories contain social predicates that refer to social properties that have multiple and highly different, or indefinitely many, realizations. In these cases, the social predicates cannot be linked via bridge laws to single individualist descriptions. Instead, they will have to be linked to a disjunction of individualist descriptions. To see this, return to the example of the social property of being a church. Insofar as a church is multiply realizable, the term “church” will have to be linked up with a disjunction of individualist descriptions, each characterizing a possible compound of individualist properties that may realize a church. The upshot is that social theories that refer to multiply realizable social properties cannot be reduced to individualist theories. Thus, holist explanations that appeal to these theories cannot be substituted by individualist explanations.

Within recent discussions in the philosophy of science, the Nagelian model of intertheoretic reduction has been criticized on a number of grounds that likewise challenge its suitability as a model of reduction in the context of the dispensability debate. Insofar as the model is deemed inadequate, arguments in favor of the indispensability of holist explanations that rest on this model lose their significance.

The argument from explanatory regress focuses on the tenability of a standard reason for holding that holist explanations should be dispensed with. The standard reason in question is the following. Given that holist explanations focus on larger units in the form of social entities and processes, they are less preferable than individualist explanations that zero in on the components of these larger units, viz. individuals, their actions, etc. The argument from explanatory regress states that this claim may likewise be used to justify the contention that individualist explanations are less preferable than explanations that focus on the biological components of individuals. The claim may be further used to motivate the assertion that these explanations, too, should be dismissed in favor of explanations that concentrate on the chemical components of individuals’ biological units, and so on. To avoid this undesirable consequence, the argument continues, the standard reason for holding that holist explanations are always less preferable than individualist ones should be dismissed. Accordingly, since explanatory practices should not be changed unless there are good reasons to do so, the existing practice of offering holist explanations should not be discontinued. From the perspective of carrying on existing explanatory practices, holist explanations are indispensable.

Considerations of this sort have been presented by a number of theorists (see e.g., Hodgson 2007; Jackson and Pettit 1992a; Jones 1996; Tannsjö 1990). It should be noted that the regress argument makes a purely negative point in that it offers no guidance as to when—and why—holist explanations are indispensable in the social sciences as they are currently practiced. In this respect, the argument differs from the others considered in this section.

The argument from differing explanatory interests asserts that holist explanations are indispensable insofar as they are capable of satisfying explanatory interests that are distinct from the interests that individualist explanations are able to satisfy. The argument has the following basic structure. First, it is made clear that a certain notion of explanation is adopted. By appeal to this notion, it is then argued that some holist explanations may serve explanatory interests that cannot be satisfied by individualist explanations. It is concluded that since the social sciences should satisfy these explanatory interests, holist explanations are indispensable.

The argument has mainly been advanced since the early 1980s. One common version of it relies on the erothetic model of explanation, according to which an explanation is an answer to a why-question. It has been presented by Alan Garfinkel, and subsequently by other theorists as well (see e.g., Garfinkel 1981; Haslanger 2016, 2018; Kincaid 1996, 1997; Risjord 2000; Weber and Van Bouwel 2002). The principal point made is that some why-questions can only be adequately answered by offering holist explanations. Consequently, since an interest in answers to these why-questions should be met, holist explanations are indispensable. Another well-known version of the argument from differing explanatory interests relies on the causal information view of explanation. It states that an explanation provides information about the causal process leading to the event in need of explanation. The key idea is that some information can only be provided via holist explanations. Since an interest in this information should be satisfied, holist explanations are thus indispensable. This version of the argument has been presented by Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit (see Jackson and Pettit 1992a, 1992b; for a comparison of the erothetic and the causal information view of explanation, see Marchionni 2007). Their influential account will be examined in more detail.

Equipped with the causal information view of explanation, Jackson and Pettit consider the explaining of particular events (Jackson and Pettit 1992a). A holist explanation provides information about the manner in which the instantiation of a social property, S , resulted in a certain event. Now, due to social properties being supervenient on individualist ones, it is always possible to offer a corresponding individualist explanation of the same event: the individualist explanation offers information as to how the individuals who realized S produced the event in question. For example, assume that the particular event in need of explanation is a rise in crime. Here, the holist explanation might be that the rise in crime was the result of a rise in unemployment, whereas the individualist explanation might state that the crime rate went up because individual a , b , c, etc. lost their jobs, and felt frustrated about having little money and no job opportunities.

The key claim made by Jackson and Pettit is that these two explanations provide different information. The holist explanation conveys that given the rise in unemployment, an increase in crime was almost bound to occur. The reason is that

had the motivations and opportunities of those particular individuals not changed, the motivations of others would have done so. (1992a: 11)

Thus the holist explanation provides modally comparative information, that is, information that brings out that what happened in the actual world would also have taken place in a variety of possible worlds. By contrast, the individualist explanation confines itself to pointing out that these particular individuals, with their changed job situations and altered motivations, were responsible for the rise in crime. As such, it offers modally contrastive information, that is, information that sets the actual world apart from other possible worlds. Because of this divergence in the information provided, Jackson and Pettit conclude that holist explanations are indispensable. Unlike individualist explanations, holist explanations may satisfy an explanatory interest in modally comparative information, and an interest in this sort of information should be met.

Jackson and Pettit’s version of the argument from differing explanatory interests has been criticized for not taking into account that pragmatic considerations may determine whether the information provided by a holist explanation is considered to be of more—or less—interest than that offered by an individualist explanation (see Weber and Van Bouwel 2002). The idea that pragmatic considerations have a role to play is given center stage in the argument from pragmatic concerns.

The argument from pragmatic concerns states that whether holist explanations are indispensable is a matter of whether they are pragmatically preferable to individualist explanations. The argument rests on the assumption that whenever a holist explanation of an event is possible, an individualist explanation of that same event is likewise feasible. It is claimed that the choice between these two explanations should be made by appeal to pragmatic considerations. It is maintained, moreover, that it is sometimes preferable from a pragmatic perspective to offer a holist, rather than an individualist explanation. On this basis, it is concluded that holist explanations are indispensable.

An argument along these lines has been offered by Jones (1996). He notes that it is sometimes less costly to establish a holist rather than an individualist explanation of some event (1996: 126). What he likely has in mind is that gathering evidence about individuals, their doings, intentions, etc. with the aim of offering an individualist explanation may take more time, and hence come with a higher monetary cost, than producing the evidence needed to advance a holist explanation. Jones additionally asserts that a holist explanation is sometimes easier to teach: because holist explanations tend to be simpler in that they do not include an abundance of detail about individuals, their doings, beliefs, etc. (1996), they may be easier for individuals to grasp. In these sorts of situations, Jones contends that holist explanations are preferable to individualist ones: in view of pragmatic concerns like those outlined above, holist explanations are indispensable.

The microfoundations debate gained prominence around the beginning of the 1980s when a number of philosophers and social scientists began to defend the view that purely holist explanations, as they may be termed, should be supplemented by an account of the underlying individual-level mechanisms. Jon Elster and Daniel Little, among others, argued in favor of this view in the context of Marxist social theorizing (Elster 1983, 1985, 1989; Little 1986, 1991, 1998). Raymond Boudon was also an early and important proponent (Boudon 1976, 1979). Their contention that social theorists must pay attention to individual-level microfoundations was soon met by opposition from methodological holists, and a debate developed. Within current philosophical discussions, the advocacy of the methodological individualist stance is often associated with the approach of analytical sociology or with key representatives thereof (Hedström 2005; Hedström and Swedberg 1996; Demeulenaere 2011). Yet the view is also defended by others, both from within and outside sociology. Arguments in support of the opposing holist stance are not tied to any specific approach within the social sciences or philosophy.

There are two basic positions within the microfoundations debate:

Methodological holism : Purely holist explanations may sometimes stand on their own; they need not always be supplemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level microfoundations. Methodological individualism : Purely holist explanations may never stand on their own; they should always be supplemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level microfoundations.

The debate may be further characterized by considering its key notions, possible qualifications of the individualist stance, and the standard motivation behind the demand for microfoundations.

To begin, purely holist explanations are ones in which both the explanans and the explanandum are expressed in terms of social phenomena. They are exemplified by claims such as “the protestant ethic caused the rise of capitalism in Western Europe”, or “the country’s high economic growth was partly due to its stable political environment”. Drawing on the discussion of holist explanations in connection with the dispensability debate, the explanans and explanandum may be said to be in terms of social phenomena when they contain social terms, descriptions, or predicates set apart by their reference to, and focus on, social phenomena. In turn, social phenomena may then be specified as social entities, social processes and social properties as exemplified by universities, revolutions, the literacy rate, and so on. Moreover, it is possible to distinguish between different types of purely holist explanation. For instance, purely holist explanations may be classified according to whether they are of the functional, intentional, or straightforward causal type, as introduced above. Or, purely holist explanations may be individuated according to their focus on, say, organizations, the statistical properties of groups, etc.

Turn now to the accounts of the individual-level microfoundations. These are specifications of the underlying individual-level mechanisms understood as causal chains of events, that occur at the level of individuals, and that link some cause in the form of a social phenomenon to its effect in the form of another social phenomenon. Very often, accounts of this sort are taken to consist of three parts. Part I lays out how a social phenomenon resulted in individuals forming various beliefs and desires, and having certain opportunities. Part II states how these beliefs, desires, and opportunities gave rise to individuals acting and interacting in a certain manner. Part III outlines how these actions and interactions, intentionally or unintentionally, brought about a certain social phenomenon. As an illustration of an account along these lines, consider the example of the purely holist explanation that “the protestant ethic caused the rise of capitalism in the West”. A very rough three-part account of the underlying individual-level mechanisms might go as follows. The protestant ethic compelled individuals to adopt certain values. These, in turn, induced them to engage in certain new forms of economic behavior. Those, finally, caused the rise of capitalism in the West. Frequently, Coleman’s well-known boat model is used to depict how purely holist explanations must include such three-part accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms (Coleman 1986, 1990). The model uses a boat form to illustrate the move from one social phenomenon down to individual-level events and up again to another social phenomenon.

As may already be clear, the accounts of the underlying mechanisms are individual-level accounts in the sense that they invariably contain descriptions of what happens to, and what is made to happen by, individuals. It is standard to invoke descriptions of individuals by reference to their roles and other properties they possess as a result of being part of social organizations. In this sense, a permissive notion as to what counts as individual-level descriptions is endorsed. The accounts of individuals may draw on different theories of the actor. In earlier phases of the debate, there was a clear tendency to base the accounts on rational-choice models. Today, other models are used as well.

The claim that purely holist explanations are in need of microfoundations may be qualified in various ways. Sometimes, it is made clear that purely holist explanations should always be accompanied by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms. Very often, this position is motivated by appeal to the “mechanism model” of explanation. It states that to explain is to show how one phenomenon, via underlying mechanisms, brought about another phenomenon; to borrow Elster’s words, to explain is “to provide a mechanism, to open up the black box and show the nuts and bolts, the cogs and wheels” (Elster 1985: 5). Accordingly, purely holist explanations do not actually constitute explanations unless they are supplemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms. In other instances, it is only held that purely holist explanations must be supplemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms in order to qualify as satisfying or complete explanations. This view is commonly motivated by a weaker version of the mechanism model of explanation, according to which a satisfactory or complete explanation, rather than an explanation as such, must describe how one phenomenon, via underlying mechanisms, brought about another.

However qualified, the assertion that purely holist explanations are always in need of microfoundations is a weaker form of methodological individualism than the one defended within the indispensability dispute. Methodological individualists who are engaged in the microfoundations debate do not insist that holist explanations should be dispensed with. The target is only purely holist explanations, i.e., ones in which both the explanans and the explanandum are expressed in terms of social phenomena, and it is simply held that these explanations are in need of supplementation by accounts of individual-level mechanisms. Also, there is no objection to the use of holist explanations in which the explanans is stated in terms of social phenomena and the explanandum is described in terms of individuals, their actions, etc. In fact, explanations along these lines are offered as part of the accounts of the individual-level mechanisms when it is specified how a social phenomenon resulted in individuals forming various beliefs and desires, and having certain opportunities. Even though the demand for microfoundations is a weaker form of methodological individualism, the position has nonetheless met with opposition. As noted, methodological holists who are engaged in the microfoundations debate insist that purely holist explanations may sometimes stand on their own in that they need not be supplemented by accounts of the individual-level mechanisms; purely holist explanations qualify as explanations, or as satisfying or complete explanations.

4. Why Purely Holist Explanations Can Sometimes Stand on Their Own

Methodological holists have offered a number of arguments in support of the claim that purely holist explanations can sometimes stand on their own. In the following, some of their main arguments are examined.

The argument from underlying social-level mechanisms purports to establish that purely holist explanations may sometimes be accompanied by underlying social-level rather than individual-level mechanisms (see e.g., Kaidesoja 2013; Kincaid 1997: 111; Mayntz 2004; Vromen 2010; Wan 2012; Ylikoski 2012).

The argument begins by noting that social phenomena are at a higher level of organization than individuals. Note that this is why accounts of individual-level mechanisms qualify as specifications of the underlying mechanisms. What is sometimes overlooked, the argument continues, is that social phenomena may themselves be at higher or lower levels of organization. For instance, a nation or a state is typically at a higher level of organization than a small firm or a school. This observation paves the way for the contention that a purely holist explanation should sometimes be accompanied by an account of the underlying mechanisms involving lower-level social phenomena. These explanations are still holist explanations. Accordingly, it is concluded, holist explanations may sometimes stand on their own in that they do not need individual-level microfoundations.

The argument from underlying social-level mechanisms makes it plain that the adoption of the mechanism model of explanation does not lend support to the view that purely holist explanations need always be accompanied by accounts of individual-level microfoundations. The model states that an explanation, or a satisfactory or complete explanation, describes how one phenomenon, via underlying mechanisms, brought about another phenomenon, and this is perfectly compatible with accounts of the underlying mechanisms consisting in descriptions of mechanisms at the level of other (though lower-level) social phenomena. Thus the argument from underlying social-level mechanisms does not challenge the mechanism model of explanation. Other arguments offered by methodological holists, however, aim to do exactly this.

The argument from mechanism regress is directed at the mechanism model of explanation. The endorsement of this model is taken to support the insistence that purely holist explanations must always be accompanied by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms (see e.g., Van Bouwel 2006; Norkus 2005; Kincaid 1997: 26; Opp 2005).

The starting point of the argument involves the observation that when two social phenomena are linked by a causal chain of events at the level of individuals, then these events are themselves connected by underlying mechanisms involving events that are, in turn, linked by underlying mechanisms, and so on. In this fashion, it is mechanisms all the way down until some physical bottom-level mechanisms are probably reached. According to the argument from mechanism regress, this point brings into view a problem faced by the mechanism model of explanation. The model requires that the underlying mechanisms that causally link two phenomena must be specified. Consequently, due to social phenomena being connected by underlying mechanisms that extend all the way down to some bottom physical level, the model seems to require that all such mechanisms be specified each time a purely holist explanation is offered. But, of course, this is an absurd requirement, and so the mechanism view of explanation should be rejected. Without it, there is no longer any basis for holding that purely holist explanations can never stand on their own.

The argument from explanatory practices likewise targets the mechanism view of explanation that is taken to underwrite the claim that purely holist explanations must be complemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms. The argument has been presented by Kincaid, who observes that both in everyday and scientific contexts, we offer explanations that lack specifications of the underlying mechanisms while still regarding these explanations as being perfectly acceptable (Kincaid 1997: 28). For instance, that a flying ball hit the window is typically regarded as a successful explanation as to why the window broke, even though no account of the underlying mechanisms is offered. This shows that our standard explanatory practices conflict with the mechanism model of explanation and, on this ground, the model should be dismissed. If this is so, there is no longer any reason for holding that purely holist explanations must always be accompanied by accounts of the underlying individual-level microfoundations.

The argument from explanatory practices and the earlier argument from mechanism regress intend to reject the mechanism model of explanation, so that it cannot serve as justification for the claim that purely holist explanations can never stand on their own. This makes it natural to wonder whether the demand for accounts of individual-level microfoundations may be upheld without appeal to this model of explanation. This issue has also been addressed in the debate.

The argument from non-mechanistic explanation purports to show that if non-mechanistic considerations as to what constitutes an explanation (or at least a satisfactory or complete explanation) are adopted, then purely holist explanations may sometimes stand on their own.

One version of the argument takes as its starting point the erothetic model of explanation, according to which explanations are, roughly speaking, answers to why-questions. Equipped with this model of explanation, Jeroen Van Bouwel considers the contrastive question as to why the French Revolution broke out in 1789, and not in 1750 (Van Bouwel 2006). Following Theda Skocpol’s work, he suggests that certain structural conditions made the revolution possible in 1789, and that these conditions were not present in 1750. In 1789, but not in 1750, the French state was economically weak because of the substantial resources that had gone into the American War of Independence, and because of the growing economic competition with England. This contrastive explanation is expressed in purely holist terms. Moreover, Van Bouwel contends that it constitutes a perfectly satisfactory—and complete—answer to the contrastive question. Adding an account of how the state’s weakness led various individuals to adopt certain beliefs and desires, and to act in ways that ultimately led to the French Revolution, would not render the explanation any better. Elaborating on this point, Van Bouwel concludes that in response to contrastive questions, purely holist explanations do not invariably need to be complemented by accounts of the underlying individual-level mechanisms.

Another version of the argument has been offered by Julian Reiss, who draws attention to the fact that two types of social phenomena may be causally linked by many different types of underlying individual-level mechanisms (Reiss 2013: 111). As an illustration of this point, he notes that an increase in the supply of currency tends to make prices go up, and that this may happen via multiple types of underlying individual-level mechanisms. Consequently, when faced with the task of explaining a particular case of prices having gone up, there are two options. One option is to appeal to the tendency of an increase in the money supply to make the prices go up; the other is to refer to this tendency while supplementing this with an account of the underlying individual-level mechanisms. The point is that we may sometimes prefer explanations that are applicable to a large number of individual cases, in which case we should opt for the purely holist explanation. If an account of the underlying individual-level mechanisms is included, the explanation will not hold for all the cases in which the mechanisms are of a different type (2013: 114). Therefore, Reiss argues, it is not correct that purely holist explanations should always be accompanied by accounts of the individual-level microfoundations; sometimes purely holist explanations may stand on their own.

• Archer, M.S., 1995, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2000, “For Structure: Its Realities, Properties, and Powers: A Reply to Anthony King”, The Sociological Review , 48: 464–472.
• Bhargava, R., 1992, Individualism in Social Science. Forms and Limits of a Methodology , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Bhaskar, R., 1979, The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences , Brighton: Harvester Press.
• –––, 1982, “Emergence, Explanation, and Emancipation”, in Explaining Human Behavior , P.F. Secord (ed.), Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 275–310.
• Boudon, R., 1976, “Comment on Hauser’s Review of Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality”, American Journal of Sociology , 81(5): 1175–1187.
• –––, 1979, “Generating Models as a Research Strategy”, in Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research. Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld , R.K. Merton, J.S. Coleman, and P.H. Rossi eds., New York: The Free Press, pp. 51–64.
• Coleman, J.S., 1986, “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action”, American Journal of Sociology , 91(6): 1309–1335.
• –––, 1990, Foundations of Social Theory , Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
• Danto, A.C., 1973 [1962], “Methodological Individualism and Methodological Socialism”, reprinted in O’Neill 1973: 312–337.
• Demeulenaere, P., 2011, “Introduction” in Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms , P. Demeulenaere, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–30.
• Durkheim, E., 1938 [1895], The Rules of Sociological Method , New York: The Free Press.
• –––, 1951 [1897], Suicide , New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
• Elder-Vass, D., 2007, “For Emergence: Refining Archer’s Account of Social Structure”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour , 37(1): 25–44.
• –––, 2010, The Causal Power of Social Structures. Emergence, Structure and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2014, “Social Entities and the Basis of Their Powers”, in Zahle and Collin 2014a: 39–53,
• Elster, J., 1983, Explaining Technical Change. A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1985, Making Sense of Marx , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1989, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Epstein, B., 2015, The Ant Trap. Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fodor, J.A., 1974, “Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)”, Synthese , 28(2): 97–115.
• Garfinkel, A., 1981, Forms of Explanation , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Gellner, E.A., 1973 [1956], “Explanations in History”, reprinted in O’Neill 1973: 248–263.
• Goldstein, Leon J., 1973a [1956], “The Inadequacy of the Principle of Methodological Individualism”, reprinted in O’Neill 1973: 264–276.
• –––, 1973b [1958], “Two Theses of Methodological Individualism”, reprinted in O’Neill 1973: 277–286.
• Hansson Wahlberg, T., 2019, “Why the social sciences are irreducible”, Synthese , 196: 4961–4987.
• Haslanger, S., 2016, “What is a (social) structural explanation?”, Philosophical Studies , 173(1): 113–130.
• –––, 2018, “Social Explanation: Structures, Stories, and Ontology. A reply to Díaz Léon, Saul, and Sterken”, Disputatio , X(50): 245–273.
• Hedström, P., 2005, Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytical Sociology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hedström, P. and R. Swedberg, 1996, “Social Mechanisms”, Acta Sociologica , 39(3): 281–308.
• Hodgson, G.M., 2007, “Meanings of Methodological Individualism”, Journal of Economic Methodology , 14(2): 211–227.
• Jackson, F., and Pettit, P., 1992a, “In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism”, Economics and Philosophy , 8: 1–21.
• –––, 1992b, “Structural Explanation in Social Theory”, in Reduction, Explanation, and Realism , D. Charles and K. Lennon (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 97–131.
• James, S., 1984, The Content of Social Explanation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jones, T., 1996, “Methodological Individualism in Proper Perspective”, Behavior and Philosophy , 24(2): 119–128.
• Kaidesoja, T., 2013, “Overcoming the Biases in Microfoundationalism: Social Mechanisms and Collective Agents”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 43(3): 301–322.
• Kim, J., 2005, Physicalism or Something Near Enough , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kincaid, H., 1986, “Reduction, Explanation, and Individualism”, Philosophy of Science , 53(4): 492–513.
• –––, 1996, Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences. Analyzing Controversies in Social Research , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1997, Individualism and the Unity of Science: Essays on Reduction, Explanation, and the Special Sciences , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• –––, 2009, “Causation in the Social Sciences”, in The Oxford Handbook of Causation , H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, and P. Menzies (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 726–743.
• List, C. and P. Pettit, 2011, “Introduction”, in Group Agency. The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• List, C. and K. Spiekermann, 2013, “Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation”, American Political Science Review , 107(4): 629–643.
• Little, D., 1986, The Scientific Marx , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• –––, 1991, Varieties of Social Explanation. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science , Boulder: Westview Press.
• –––, 1998, Microfoundations, Method, and Causation: On the Philosophy of the Social Sciences , New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publishers.
• Lukes, S., 1968, “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered”, British Journal of Sociology , 19(2): 119–129.
• Macdonald, G. and P. Pettit, 1981, Semantics and Social Science , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Mandelbaum, M., 1955, “Societal Facts”, British Journal of Sociology , 6(4): 305–317.
• –––, 1973 [1957], “Societal Laws”, reprinted in O’Neill 1973: 235–247.
• Marchionni, C., 2007, “Explanatory Pluralism and Complementarity”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 38(3): 314–333.
• Mayntz, R., 2004, “Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 34(2): 237–259.
• Norkus, Z., 2005, “Mechanisms as Miracle Makers? The Rise and Inconsistencies of the ‘Mechanism Approach’, in Social Science and History”, History and Theory , 44(3): 348–372.
• O’Neill, J., (ed.), 1973, Modes of Individualism and Collectivism , London: Heinemann.
• Opp, K.-D., 2005, “Explanations by mechanisms in the social sciences. Problems, advantages and alternatives”, Mind & Society , 4: 163–178.
• Putnam, H., 1967, “Psychological Predicates”, in Art, Mind, and Religion , W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 37–48.
• Reiss, J., 2013, Philosophy of Economics. A Contemporary Introduction , New York: Routledge.
• Rios, D. 2005, “Social Complexity and the Micro-Macro Link”, Current Sociology , 53(5): 773–559.
• Risjord, M., 2000, Woodcutters and Witchcraft. Rationality and Interpretive Change in the Social Sciences , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Sawyer, R.K., 2002, “Nonreductive Individualism: Part I—Supervenience and Wild Disjunction”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 32(4): 537–559.
• –––, 2003, “Nonreductive Individualism: Part II—Social Causation”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 33(2): 203–224.
• –––, 2005, Social Emergence. Societies as Complex Systems , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tännsjö, T., 1990, “Methodological Individualism”, Inquiry , 33(1): 69–80.
• Tollefsen, D.P., 2002, “Collective Intentionality and the Social Sciences”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 32(1): 25–50.
• –––, 2015, Groups as Agents , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Van Bouwel, J., 2006, “The Idea of Social Mechanisms in Social Scientific Explanations”, in Advances in Social Psychology Research , J.Z. Arlsdale (ed.), New York: Zed Books, pp. 83–95.
• Vromen, J., 2010, “MICRO-Foundations in Strategic Management: Squaring Coleman’s Diagram”, Erkenntnis , 73(3): 365–383.
• Wan, P.Y.-z., 2012, “Analytical Sociology: A Bungean Appreciation”, Science and Education , 21: 1545–1565.
• Weber, E. and J. Van Bouwel, 2002, “Can We Dispense With Structural Explanations of Social Facts?”, Economics and Philosophy , 18: 259–275.
• Wright, E.O., A. Levine, and E. Sober, 1992, Reconstructing Marxism. Essays on Explanation and the Theory of History , London: Verso.
• Ylikoski, P., 2012, “Micro, Macro, and Mechanisms”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science , Harold Kincaid (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–45.
• –––, 2014, “Rethinking Micro-Macro Relations”, in Zahle and Collin 2014a: 117–135.
• Zahle, J., 2003, “The Individualism/Holism Debate on Intertheoretic Reduction and the Argument from Multiple Realization”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 33(1): 77–100.
• –––, 2007, “Holism and Supervenience”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology , S. Turner and M. Risjord (eds.), Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 311–341.
• –––, 2013, “Holism, in social sciences”, in Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences , B. Kaldis (ed.), London, Sage Publications, pp. 425–430.
• –––, 2014, “Holism, Emergence and the Crucial Distinction”, in Zahle and Collin 2014a: 177–196.
• Zahle, J. and F. Collin (eds.), 2014a, Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate. Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science , Dordrecht: Synthese Library Springer.
• –––, 2014b, “Introduction”, in Zahle and Collin 2014a: 1–14.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

individualism, methodological | mechanism in science | reduction, scientific | scientific explanation | social institutions

Acknowledgments

This entry draws, and expands, on Zahle (2007, 2013) and Zahle and Collin (2014b). Thanks to Harold Kincaid and Petri Ylikoski for their very helpful comments.

Copyright © 2023 by Julie Zahle < juliezahle @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

What Is Holistic Education? Understanding the History, Methods, and Benefits

The holistic education concept—the philosophy of educating the whole person, beyond core academics—is gaining steam in learning circles as schools struggle to improve student outcomes. Many organizations are realizing that students need more than just a strong foundation in a core curriculum, they also need to be supported by a community and to develop a compassionate understanding of the world around them.

State governments and school district officials set the tone for whether learning environments will focus on academic-centric or holistic learning concepts. However, teachers play the central role in enacting learning policies, and they have the greatest opportunity to help students discover their identities and find meaning in community and world connections through holistic teaching methods. By pursuing a Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership or a Master of Arts in Teaching , educators can learn how holistic learning and other teaching strategies can shape students’ futures.

What Is Holistic Education?

Holistic education is a comprehensive approach to teaching where educators seek to address the emotional, social, ethical, and academic needs of students in an integrated learning format. Emphasis is placed on positive school environments and providing whole-child supports (services that support academic and nonacademic needs, also known as wraparound supports) to students.

Students are taught to reflect on their actions and how they impact the global and local community, as well as how to learn from the community around them. Teachers often engage students in projects that apply critical-thinking skills toward solving real-world problems.

History of Holistic Education

Holistic education is a relatively new movement developed in the 1980s to counteract the existing US learning structure that was perceived as mechanistic, according to Education Corner. However, the theory of educating based on a person’s entire experience has roots in ancient concepts of instruction, including those of Greek and native indigenous cultures, and has increased in prevalence over the past century. Several different approaches based on whole-person education gained steam in the 20th century, including Maria Montessori’s self-motivated growth philosophy and Rudolf Steiner and Emil Molt’s Waldorf experiential learning technique.

Many states are now incorporating holistic goals into their educational system improvement plans. This trend is encouraged by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which provides federal funding to foster state efforts. School systems are increasingly accepting the theory that learning conditions, whole-child services, and social and emotional development are measurable variables of education and can improve equity and outcomes, according to EducationCounsel.

Holistic Education Methods

The goal of holistic education is to cultivate a developing child’s physical, emotional, moral, psychological, and spiritual attributes. Serving the whole child means providing opportunities that are personalized to a child’s skills and feelings. Lessons are conducted in a safe, supportive environment that allows students to utilize their individual strengths. Teachers must be prepared to nurture students with varying educational levels and learning capabilities. While holistic education is guided by one overarching philosophy, teachers may employ a number of methods and strategies to create a holistic learning culture.

Educational Models

Experiential Learning : Schools focused on experiential learning provide hands-on educational experiences. For instance, students might work in groups exploring different learning styles to determine which styles are most effective for them. Holistic, experiential techniques often include problem-solving exercises to address community problems or create innovative products.

Self-Guided Learning : In self-guided educational environments, teachers allow students to learn at their own pace in the style that best suits them. The self-guided culture allows for personalization to mitigate the inadequacies of one-size-fits-all learning models. Low-stakes assessments are used to adjust the curriculum’s content and pace. Classrooms may be smaller and contain students of different ages and ability levels.

Community Schools : Community schools are based on the idea that people find meaning through connections with their community. Teachers partner with community members, including families, residents, organizations, and officials, to provide integrated support and expanded learning opportunities, including after-school and summer programs. Schools are a hub of the community bringing together academic, social, development, and engagement activities.

Interdisciplinary Coursework : Part of what makes up holistic education is the idea that students’ cognitive growth is improved when multiple subjects are addressed together. Some schools are creating integrated programs where teachers from different disciplines come together to teach thematic courses that address issues from multiple perspectives. Coursework might also include independent research, travel, fieldwork, and internships.

Teacher Strategies

Strong Student-Teacher Relationships : When teachers are able to form strong bonds with students, performance and engagement is positively impacted. At-risk students have a higher chance of success when they feel safe and nurtured. Teachers can foster strong relationships by responding to students’ strengths and needs and by acting in a culturally sensitive manner. Allowing students to help develop classroom rules and take on leadership roles helps encourage trust and communication among students and enhances their motivation to succeed.

Encouraging Self-Confidence : Students need to believe that they belong at school and have the ability to succeed. Teachers can help build self-confidence by providing multiple opportunities for students to digest structured information and communicate their understanding in a variety of ways. Teachers must recognize students’ unique strengths and treat all students equally. Student motivation can be enhanced by making sure that lessons are relevant to students’ lives and focus on realistic issues.

Incorporating Emotional Reflection : As a teacher, it’s not always easy to look beyond academic performance to nurture the mental and emotional well-being of a child. To encourage emotional reflection in daily routines, teachers might provide moments for students to reflect, contemplate, or meditate. Lessons to teach empathy could focus on effective listening and observation techniques or literature that presents varying perspectives on social issues.

Benefits of Holistic Education

Holistic education is based on a learning philosophy that brings a number of benefits to students, teachers, schools, and communities. Students are empowered to improve their educational outcomes and gain the life skills necessary to take on a successful professional career.

Improved Academic Achievement : Holistic education can improve the academic achievements of all children, regardless of background and circumstances, by catering to individual learning styles and providing a supportive learning environment. Children’s brain capacities are increased when they feel physically and emotionally safe and connected to others, according to the Learning Policy Institute.

Enhanced Mental and Emotional Well-Being : In a supportive environment, where social and emotional learning is emphasized along with academics, students have a better chance of emerging with self-awareness, confidence, and a sense of social responsibility.

Increased Problem-Solving Ability : Students who are tasked with solving real-world problems that exist in their communities emerge with strong critical-thinking skills. These hands-on projects give students skills that will apply to their adult careers, such as how to gather, analyze, and report data and how to collaborate with others.

Reduced Impact of Inequities : By emphasizing integrated learning concepts, the whole-child approach to education has been shown to reduce the psychological impact of issues such as violence, abuse, or poverty on academic achievement, according to the Learning Policy Institute.

Learn More About Holistic Education

Through holistic education strategies, including integrated learning formats and community interactions, teachers can help students develop a strong sense of self, as well as promote lifelong happiness and success. By pursuing a master’s degree in education, teachers can advance their knowledge of holistic education and other innovative learning concepts.

American University’s School of Education offers a Master of Education in Education Policy and Leadership degree and a Master of Arts in Teaching degree designed to enable teaching leaders to enact real change in learning environments. American University offers in-person, online, and hybrid degree program options.

Traditional vs. Progressive Education: Benefits and Challenges

Top Education Nonprofit Organizations Helping Shape Schools, Students & Teachers

What’s the Difference Between Educational Equity and Equality?

Education Corner, “Holistic Education: A Comprehensive Guide”

EducationCounsel, “Social and Emotional Learning and Development, Conditions for Learning, and Whole Child Supports in ESSA State Plans”

Education Dive, “Teachers Can Use Proven Strategies to Help Students Develop Empathy”

Inside Higher Ed, “6 Ideas Whose Time Has Come”

Learning Policy Institute, “Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success”

Learning Policy Institute, How Federal Policy Can Empower States and Communities to Provide Whole Child Education for All Students

NEA Today, “Bridging the Gap: Serving the Whole Child Involves Every Educator”

Request Information

Eryn David Ahmed Santos Agustin

Constant Thanker

Holistic Perspective and Philosophical Reflection

Weeks 1 & 2: Lesson

MELC-based Weeks 1 & 2

Lesson Proper (What’s new?)

Introduction

Philosophy, which etymologically means “love of wisdom,” is the study of the elemental nature and theories of reason (logic), knowledge (epistemology), ethics/morality/values (axiology), and first principles of everything (metaphysics). Using “correct” reasoning (alternatively known as “logic”), philosophy attempts to answer the fundamental, abstract, general, and most often than not, controversial or dilemmatic problems. Generally, there are no single, specific and definitive answers to philosophical questions.

Doing Philosophy (Philosophizing)

Philosophical study can either be an individual intellectual or a collective pursuit. As an individual intellectual pursuit, philosophers use analytic thought processes to test ideas, analyze beliefs, and/or resolve conflicts. On the other hand, as a collective pursuit, individuals and groups employ methodological insights to deal with controversial issues and moral dilemmas about societal problems (such as, same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment). Whatever the pursuit an individual or group might have, either in an individual or on a collective level (and both), philosophizing is prescriptively and normatively bound by reason and morality in arriving at the truth – and ultimately, wisdom. Thus, individuals and peoples, in general, could apply at all levels and in each moment of his/their life/lives a personal or collective philosophy of life.

Holistic Perspective versus Partial Viewpoint

         In doing philosophy, philosophizing, or inquiring philosophically, there are two (2) general perspectives. First, holistic perspective refers to a viewpoint that consists of closely knitted individual parts that make up the whole of a situation prior to arriving at or in making any conclusion. Example of a holistic perspective is weighing both sides of two opposing parties’ arguments and evidences before making a judgment, generalization, or conclusion. Second, partial perspective denotes a point of view that is composed of individual parts of only a particular, but not, entire context. Example of a partial perspective is considering only one-sided, particular claim/s. Generally, philosophical dialogues, discussions, and related conversations utilize the multi-argumentative (pros and cons), unprejudicial and unbiased holistic perspective/s as it, theoretically, exhaustively anchor any conclusions and generalizations as to the “whole of a matter.” Thus, the philosophical exercise of using holistic approach, viewpoint or perspective can further develop in an individual the philosophical robustness of moral, critical- and logical-mindedness in many, if not most, various life’s situations.

Value of Philosophizing

Philosophizing – or more practically stated, doing philosophy – means delighting oneself to realize one’s full potential when unleashing the importance philosophy has in getting a holistic perspective in life. When you reflect on your concrete experiences, you might use a philosophical lens to see “small and far objects” better and in magnified way. To utilize holistic view most, if not all, of the times, a person should acquire and use the various philosophical (e.g., analytical, interpretative) and related (e.g., communicative) skills when understanding the whole aspects of a situation, problem or issue.

Philosophical Reflection

Philosophical reflection, or simply philosophizing, is an intellectual process where an individual becomes simultaneously deeply engrossed with himself/herself while holistically evaluating his/her intention, decision, and situation prior to making an action. As an individual habitually develops this philosophical discipline of deep reflection on a regular basis, he/she in turn arrives at a deeper meaningful understanding of himself/herself when searching for facts, truth, and wisdom. 

Having in mind the philosophical process of reflecting as part of daily living, he or she becomes more better attuned with his/her own personhood (such as, personal convictions, local context, moral experiences, reflectiveness and consistency in his/her actions). Aside from knowing and then examining oneself, the fruits of philosophizing or philosophical reflection starts but does not end within oneself, but the self becomes one with others in meaning-making and action-taking.

A few concrete examples on how philosophical reflection results to self-knowledge could be gleaned from the following: (a) learning from your previous mistakes or from the mistakes of other people so as not to repeat doing the same mistakes; (b) using a holistic perspective when choosing from a variety of options before deciding, acting, generalizing, or making any conclusion.

Summary/Generalization (What a student learned so far?)

         Philosophy comes from 2 Greek terms with the literal meaning of “love (of)” plus “wisdom;” hence, a philosopher is a person who is a lover of wisdom. The major branches of philosophy are logic, epistemology, axiology, and metaphysics. You will learn more about the detailed treatments of these branches in higher-level, specialized philosophy courses in a university setting. To approach a problem or query in a philosophical way, an individual has to keep in mind that there is no single answer or solution to a particular question that is truly “philosophical in nature.”

         For most individuals who are enthusiasts in learning and engaging in philosophy, it is much of an individual intellectual pursuit. Equivocally, individuals or groups can philosophically interact about societal situations in a collective way. Whatever pursuit people might have, it is best to guard oneself with the right mindset, at the right time, and with the right people. Furthermore, when doing philosophy, or simply philosophizing, a holistic view is the preferred, relevant and significant perspective as it avoids the multifaceted pitfalls of impartiality in dealing with issues, problems, dilemmas, and controversies in philosophy and life, in general.

         The importance of philosophizing emanates within oneself and from the wisdom of people who endeavored to see the truth. As you put your interest in seeing things from a holistic perspective, coupled with the necessary philosophical skills, you can then muster to your advantage well-thought of decisions and actions in any particular situation, Experiencing the value of philosophy is thus through habitual philosophical reflection, which further develops in an individual’s ever-replenishing self-knowledge and consequent benefits (such as, becoming more prudent in deciding over matter of urgency, seeing the big picture so as not to be misled by hasty generalizations, and so forth).

Overtime📖Philosophy

Holism Vs Reductionism: Which Philosophy Is Better

There’s a big debate in the scientific community: holism vs reductionism. Some scientists argue that you should look at things from a holistic perspective, while others say that reductionism is the best way to approach problems. So, what’s the difference…

There’s a big debate in the scientific community: holism vs reductionism. Some scientists argue that you should look at things from a holistic perspective , while others say that reductionism is the best way to approach problems. So, what’s the difference between these two ways of thinking? And which one is better? Keep reading to find out.

What Is Holism ⭕

Dr. Jan Smuts first coined the word “holism” in 1926. He defined it as “the tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of their parts.” Holism is based on the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This can be seen throughout nature, from cells and organs to ecosystems and societies. There are many different schools of thought within holism, but they all share a common goal: to focus on the whole rather than the individual parts.

Reductionism

Reductionism is the belief that complex phenomena can be reduced to the interactions between their individual parts or elements. In this debate, reductionism is often seen as the logically simpler option, while holism is seen as more complex and difficult to understand.

However, many scientists and philosophers argue that reductionism actually leads to a limited understanding of natural phenomena, while holism provides a more clear view of reality.

Holism Vs Reductionism

Reductionism is the belief that complex phenomena can be reduced to the interactions between their individual parts or elements. In other words, reductionism attempts to explain a complex system by breaking it down into its simplest components.

Holism, on the other hand, is the belief that complex systems cannot be fully understood by examining their individual parts. Instead, one must examine the system as a whole. For example, reductionism would view the human body as a collection of organs, each working independently to perform its own function.

Holism, however, would view the human body as an integrated system in which each organ works together with all the others to maintain health and balance. While reductionism has its merits, holism provides a more holistic understanding of complex systems.

The history of holism and reductionism can be traced back to the very beginnings of Western philosophy. In the early days of Greek thought, philosophers like Parmenides and Heraclitus took radically different approaches to understanding reality.

Parmenides argued that reality is a unified whole, while Heraclitus insisted that reality is in a state of constant flux.

These two ideas would go on to form the foundation for holism and reductionism, respectively.

Throughout the centuries, philosophers and scientists have debated the merits of these two approaches. reductionists argue that complex phenomena can be understood by breaking them down into their component parts, while holists maintain that complex phenomena must be studied as a whole.

The debate between these two camps is still very much alive today, with each side continuing to make convincing arguments in support of their respective positions.

Pros And Cons

Holism and reductionism are two approaches that can be used to understand complex systems. Holism focuses on the whole system, while reductionism breaks the system down into its individual parts. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses.

On the plus side, holism allows for a more comprehensive understanding of a system. It takes into account the interrelationships between different elements, and how they work together to produce the overall effect .

This can be very helpful when trying to solve problems or make predictions. However, holism can also be quite difficult to apply in practice, since it often requires a lot of information about the system as a whole.

In addition, holism can sometimes lead to oversimplification, as it can be easy to lose sight of the nuances when looking at the big picture.

Reductionism, on the other hand, allows for a more precise and detailed understanding of a system. By breaking it down into its individual parts, it is possible to gain a greater understanding of how each element works and how it contributes to the overall function of the system.

This can be very useful for designing experiments or making calculations. However, reductionism can also lead to oversimplification, as it is often difficult to see how the different parts of a system interact with each other.

In addition, reductionism can miss important aspects of a system that can only be understood by looking at it as a whole.

Practical Applications

The study of psychology often requires understanding complex ideas and theories. In many ways, these two perspectives are complementary, and both can be useful in different situations.

For example, when trying to lose weight, it may be helpful to take a holistic approach. This means looking at your diet and lifestyle as a whole and making changes that will lead to sustainable weight loss.

However, there may also be times when a more reductionist approach is necessary. For example, if you are struggling to stick to your diet, you may need to break it down into smaller goals, such as eating healthier meals or exercising more frequently.

By understanding both holism and reductionism, you can create a well-rounded approach to achieving your goals.

The debate between holism and reductionism is a long-standing one in the field of psychology. Proponents of holism argue that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that behavior cannot be fully understood by looking at individual components.

In contrast, reductionists believe that behavior can be explained by breaking it down into smaller pieces. Both approaches have their merits, and examples of both can be found in research on human behavior.

In psychology, holism describes a holistic approach that considers the mind, body, and spirit as one unified system. One of the main benefits of holism is that it can help people see themselves in a new light.

Understanding how all of their parts work together allows people to see themselves as a complex but unified whole. This can be helpful in terms of self-esteem and self-awareness.

Since holism aims to understand how all of the parts interact, it can help identify and resolve conflicts between different parts of the self. This can be helpful in terms of personal growth and development.

In holistic medicine, holism is a philosophy that views the body as a whole, interconnected system and seeks to treat the entire person, not just individual symptoms. This approach to medicine can be very beneficial. It allows practitioners to look at the person as a whole and identify any underlying problems causing their health issues.

Holistic nursing is becoming increasingly popular, and more nurses are seeing the benefits of this approach. If you are interested in learning more about holistic nursing, many resources are available, including books , websites, and courses .

One of the benefits of holistic nursing is that it can help nurses develop a deeper understanding of their patients and their needs.

By taking a holistic approach, nurses can identify potential problems early on and address them before they become more serious. In addition, holistic nursing can help promote physical and emotional healing.

One of the main criticisms of holistic medicine is that it is not always supported by scientific evidence. However, many people who have tried holistic medicine find that it helps them feel physically and emotionally better.

Many organizations are dedicated to holistic nursing, such as the American Holistic Nurses Association (AHNA) and the Holistic Nursing Network (HNN). Holistic medicine can also provide preventative care, essential for maintaining good health.

Another example of holism in action comes from studies on social interactions. Researchers have found that people are more likely to cooperate with others when they feel like they are part of a larger group. This effect is known as “group cohesion,” and it demonstrates how people’s behavior can be influenced by the groups they belong to.

Another example comes from research on self-control. Studies have shown that people are more likely to resist temptation when they are focusing on their long-term goals, rather than their immediate desires. This finding suggests that people are capable of making decisions that are not dictated by their immediate impulses and that they can behave in ways that reflect their values and goals.

Reductionist

Reductionism can also be seen in action in psychological research. One example comes from studies on learning and memory. Researchers have found that forgetting occurs when the information is not encoded correctly, or when it is not retrieved correctly.

This finding demonstrates how forgetting happens as a result of specific processes, and how it can be explained by looking at the individual components of memory. Another example comes from research on emotions.

Scientists have found that emotions are generated by different patterns of activity in the brain and that each emotion is associated with a unique combination of physiological changes. This finding shows how emotions arise from specific regions and systems in the brain, and how they can be understood by studying these individual parts.

Both holism and reductionism have their place in psychological research, and each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. By understanding both perspectives, psychologists can gain a more complete understanding of human behavior.

Looking Forward

As we look to the future of science, it is clear that the ability to take a holistic approach will be essential. The world is becoming increasingly complex, and the problems we face are often multi-faceted. To find solutions, we need to be able to see the big picture and understand how the different parts of a system interact with each other. By taking a reductionist approach, breaking a problem down into its component parts, we can gain a deep understanding of how it works. However, this knowledge is only useful if we can also see how these parts fit together and interact with each other. To truly solve the problems of tomorrow, science must embrace both holism and reductionism.

In conclusion, holism and reductionism are two philosophical approaches to understanding the world around us. They each have their own history, benefits, drawbacks, and applications. By understanding both philosophies, we can apply them in our lives to make better decisions about the world we live in. What do you think? Is there a place for both philosophies in the future of science? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below or check out our other articles on philosophy!

Similar Posts

Populism Vs Progressivism: 2 Paths to Change in Modern Life

As the world becomes more and more technological, some people believe that the old ways of effecting change are no longer effective. They champion populism as a way to take back control from the establishment. Others believe in progressivism, using…

Modernism Vs Postmodernism How To Know The Difference

If you’ve ever taken an art history class, you’re probably no stranger to the terms “modernism” and “postmodernism.” But what do these terms actually mean? And how do they differ from one another? In this blog post, we’ll take a…

Epistemology Vs Ontology: What Does It Really Mean

If there’s one thing that philosophy has taught us, it’s the importance of distinctions. The tree-like structure of ontology and epistemology is a perfect example. Ontology is the study of what exists, while epistemology is the study of how we…

Centrism Vs Anti Centrist: Contrast And Compare

In the ever-evolving landscape of politics and social movements, the battle of ideologies continues to shape our societies. Two prominent and contrasting viewpoints that have gained significant attention are centrism and anti-centrism. While centrism advocates for a moderate and balanced…

Perception vs Perspective: Do You Know The Differences?

The phrases “perspective” and “perception” have rich histories that evolved from their original roots in visual art and sensory experiences to encompass broader philosophical and cognitive dimensions.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: A Delicate Balance for the Greater Good

Patriotism and nationalism are two concepts that evoke strong emotions and have played significant roles in shaping the course of history. While they both revolve around love and devotion to one’s country, they differ in their approaches and implications. In…

Holistic Human Development

• Published: 17 January 2009
• Volume 16 , pages 53–60, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

• Carter J. Haynes 1 , 2  

1423 Accesses

6 Citations

Explore all metrics

One of the tenets of holism is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Applying this theorem epistemologically, we could say that a holistic view is greater than the sum of the specialized views that contribute to it. Within the framework of three divergent worldviews (mechanistic, organismic and contextual) as originally proposed by Pepper (World hypotheses: A study in evidence, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1961 ), holism as both a philosophical position and a practical approach to research is applied to the study of adult human development. Because spiritual development has received less scholarly attention than biological, cognitive, or emotional functioning, topics such as meditation research, non-religious spirituality, and the concept of soul are covered to promote a balanced developmental perspective. Historical and philosophical factors leading to holism are described, a sampling of interdisciplinary dialogue between psychology and theology is presented, and conclusions regarding the need for holistic thinking and the relationship between religion and spirituality are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Integrative Perspectives on Human Development: Dynamic and Semiotic

Developmental Psychology

Benner, D. (1998). Care of souls . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co.

Google Scholar  

Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Durkheim, E. (1915/1976). The elementary forms of the religious life (J. W. Swain, Trans., First Free Press paperback ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, L. J., Hughes, L. L., & Leaf, J. A. (1988). Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definition, description, and measurement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28 (4), 5.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fowler, J. W. (1995). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning . San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Fowler, J. W. (2001). Faith development theory and the postmodern challenges. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11 (3), 159.

Fowler, J. W. (2004). Faith development at 30: Naming the challenges of faith in a new millennium. Religious Education, 99 (4), 405.

Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., Taylor, J. M., & Bardige, B. (Eds.). (1988). Mapping the moral domain: A contribution of women’s thinking to psychological theory and education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldhaber, D. (2000). Theories of human development: An integrative perspective . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Gordon, J. S. (1990). Holistic medicine and mental health practice: Toward a new synthesis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60 , 357–370.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haynes, C. (2006). What is happiness? Family Therapy Magazine , 5 (6), 12–17.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development . San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1982). Toward a psychology of being . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Maslow, A. H. (1994). Religions, values, and peak-experiences . New York: Penguin Arkana.

Miller, R. (1991). Educating the true self: Spiritual roots of the holistic worldview. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31 (4), 53–67.

Pepper, S. C. (1961). World hypotheses: A study in evidence . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child . New York: Free Press.

Seaward, B. L. (2000). Stress and human spirituality 2000: At the cross roads of physics and metaphysics. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 25 (4), 241–246.

Shapiro, D. H. (1994). Examining the content and context of meditation: A challenge for psychology in the areas of stress management, psychotherapy, and religion/values. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34 (4), 101.

Streib, H. (2001). Faith development theory revisited: The religious styles perspective. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11 (3), 143.

Sykes, B. M. (2006). Questioning psychological health: Contextualizing contemporary psychological theory through historical dialogue between theologians and psychologists, 1940–1960. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Ottawa, Canada.

Walsh, R. (1983). Meditation practice and research. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23 (1), 18.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank John Stanfield of Fielding Graduate University and Indiana University for his encouragement, support, and review; and the blind peer reviewers for comments that were used to refine and improve this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Human and Organizational Development, Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Carter J. Haynes

P.O. Box 276785, Sacramento, CA, 95827-6785, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carter J. Haynes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Haynes, C.J. Holistic Human Development. J Adult Dev 16 , 53–60 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9052-4

Download citation

Published : 17 January 2009

Issue Date : March 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9052-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinary
• Epistemology
• Development
• Psychology and religion
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Theory of Holistic Perspective

Holistic Perspective

The Theory of Holistic Perspective provides a framework for understanding how sentient beings, including humans, perceive and interact with the world. It’s centered around the concept that all beings simplify reality by intuitively assigning three of the six universal dimensions to their experiences, particularly when interacting with their environment. This process is largely unconscious and automatic but can become more conscious with experience and development, especially after language is acquired.

Key Components of the Theory

Six universal reality dimensions.

The Six Universal Reality Dimensions, as presented in the Theory of Holistic Perspective , describe the fundamental aspects through which all sentient beings perceive and engage with reality. These six dimensions are categorized into three complementary pairs that represent the spectrum of our experiences and understandings:

• Material and Immaterial – Existence/Space: This dimension differentiates between what is tangible and physical (material) and what is conceptual or ideational (immaterial). It encompasses the physical objects and substances in our world as well as the thoughts, ideas, and concepts that do not have a physical form.
• Internal and External – Interconnections/Holons: Incorporating the Internal and External dimension with the concept of holons, which are entities that are simultaneously wholes and parts of other wholes, highlights our interaction with reality through nested layers of complexity. Holons exemplify how we perceive and influence our internal experiences and the external world. This distinction aids in understanding the interconnectedness of self with broader systems, emphasizing that our internal perceptions (thoughts, feelings, and intuitions) and external actions (interactions with the environment and others) are integral parts of a continuous spectrum of reality. By recognizing this we can better navigate the boundaries and interconnections between the internal and external, appreciating the complexity and interdependence of our existence.
• Relativistic and Reflexive – Interaction/Time: Relativistic Reality relates to the objective interaction of inanimate objects, following physical and natural laws, devoid of interpretation. The “Law of Least Resistance” describes this kind of interaction. This dimension is always in the present moment. Reflexive Reality, in contrast, involves subjective interactions based on intent, free will, and personal interpretation. The “Law of Eliminating Discrepancies” describes this kind of interaction.This dimension is always in the past or future.

By becoming aware of how these dimensions influence our perceptions, we can better navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by our interactions with the world and with others. This awareness can lead to a more holistic understanding of ourselves and the universe, enhancing our capacity for empathy, ethical decision-making, and meaningful engagement with our environment and society.

Eight Personal Perspective Positions

The Theory suggests that there are eight distinct perspectives that sentient beings can adopt, generated by combining three of the six universal dimensions. These perspectives are:

• Sensed Reality (Internal and External) : Sensed Reality is about perceiving the world through direct sensory experiences. The internal aspect focuses on personal sensations like hunger, while the external aspect involves understanding others’ perceptions, such as empathy through mirror neurons.
• Observed Reality (Internal and External) : Observed Reality involves understanding cause-and-effect relationships in material and reflexive dimensions. Internally, it deals with controlling personal systems and processes, while externally, it focuses on managing external events, systems, or scenarios.
• Intuited Reality (Internal and External) : Intuited Reality is centered on interpreting intangible concepts like values and priorities. Internally, it pertains to personal interpretations and narratives, whereas externally, it relates to understanding others’ interpretations and mental models.
• Transimmanent Reality (Internal and External) : Transimmanent Reality encompasses the understanding of potential and possibilities in both tangible and intangible realms. Internally, it involves realizing one’s own full potential, while externally, it is about recognizing the full potential and possibilities in others and the external world.

Personal, Shared, and Universal Truths

• Personal Truths are individual narratives shaped by combining three of the six Universal Reality Dimensions.
• Shared Truths emerge when individuals perceive something similarly, reflecting collective beliefs or opinions.
• Universal Truths are fundamental truths rooted in the three axes of the Theory, representing aspects of reality all sentient beings are bound to experience.
• Understanding Biases and Mental Models: The Theory of Holistic Perspective enriches our approach to understanding biases and mental models by emphasizing the conscious recognition of how we intuitively assign the six universal reality dimensions to our experiences. This enhanced awareness is fundamental in identifying potential blind spots and limiting beliefs that can obscure our perception of reality. By acknowledging these automatic cognitive processes, we can begin to challenge and expand our mental models, paving the way for a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the world around us.
• Seeing True Reality: The Theory aims to encourage a more holistic view of reality by recognizing and integrating the material and immaterial, the internal and external, and the relativistic and reflexive dimensions of experience. This holistic viewpoint acknowledges the complexity and interconnectedness of all aspects of reality, encouraging a deeper appreciation for the many ways in which we can experience and understand our existence.
• Promoting Holistic Decision-Making: In promoting holistic decision-making, the Theory not only enhances personal growth and understanding but also equips us to navigate the complexities of modern life with greater empathy, compassion, and effectiveness. By embracing its framework, we can make decisions that are informed by a fuller appreciation of the diverse facets of reality, leading to outcomes that are beneficial for ourselves and the broader community.

Application

In practice, applying the Theory involves engaging in Mindfulness Awareness practices, developing Causality Awareness through systems thinking, embracing the potential of each moment with Open Awareness, and actively refining our awareness of the world with Witnessing Awareness.

It means integrating these practices into our daily routines, relationships, and decision-making processes, thereby transforming our approach to life into one that is more aware, deliberate, and harmonious. By doing so, we align our actions with a broader understanding and respect for the interconnectedness of all life, leading to a more meaningful, purposeful, and sustainable existence.

The Diamond of Purpose and Meaning

The Diamond of Purpose and Meaning is a supporting model within the Theory of Holistic Perspective. It offers a framework for understanding and developing fundamental mental models that self-aware beings use to create identities and find meaning and purpose in life. The Diamond helps in balancing various aspects of life, guiding individuals towards a fulfilling existence that aligns with their deeper values and aspirations.

Structure of the Diamond of Purpose and Meaning:

Central Top Part – Awareness

• Focuses on how self-aware beings create a mental model of self and the world through the Eight Personal Perspective Positions in the Theory of Holistic Perspective.
• Explores four well defined awareness exercises; Witnessing, Causality, Mindfulness, and Open Awareness.

Top Left Side – Long-Term Facets

• These are more enduring aspects of a person’s life and personality, shaping one’s identity, long-term motivation, worldview, and life trajectory.
• Includes elements like Life situation, Needs, Genes, Attitudes, Values, Beliefs, Vision, and Mission.

Top Right Side – Short-Term Facets

• These represent immediate, situational aspects of motivation, experiences, and mental models.
• Comprises Situation, Desires, Impulses, Feelings, Preferences, Opinions, Priorities, and Focus.

Middle Part Left – Long-term Fulfillment

• Encompasses Goals, Character, and Potential.
• The interplay between Goals, Character, and Potential is foundational to personal development and fulfillment. Goals represent the aspirations or outcomes we strive to achieve, acting as a compass that guides our decisions and actions over time. These aspirations are deeply influenced by our Character, the qualities and traits that define our ethical and moral nature. Character shapes how we pursue our goals, ensuring that our actions align with our values and principles. Meanwhile, our Potential encompasses the inherent abilities and capacities that may not yet be fully realized.

Middle Part Right – Short-term Achievement

• Involves Intent, Integrity, and Mastery.
• Intent serves as the foundational driving force, representing our purposeful determination and the conscious motivations behind our actions. Integrity is the ethical framework or compass that ensures our intentions and actions are consistent with our moral and ethical standards. Mastery is the culmination of diligently applying our intent through the lens of integrity, honing our skills, and realizing our talents to the fullest.

Bottom Part – Wisdom and Wuwei

• Wisdom is mastery in holistic decision making and epresents the culmination of personal development through the Four Pillars of Wuwei, each consisting of three cornerstones from Ikigai.
• Wuwei (effortless action) is achieved through a deep sense of Duty, Calling, Meaning, and Purpose, aligning with elements like what the world needs, what one is good at, what one loves, and what one is paid for.

Key Concepts in the Diamond

• Vision and Priorities: Aligning long-term Vision with short-term Priorities to ensure daily decisions support broader life aspirations.
• Mission and Focus: Harmonizing long-term Mission with immediate Focus to maintain coherence between efforts and long-term goals.

Importance:

• Finding Meaning and Purpose: The Diamond guides individuals in discovering and nurturing their true purpose and meaning in life.
• Balancing Life Aspects: It helps in maintaining a balance between immediate needs and long-term goals, ensuring a well-rounded approach to personal development.
• Creating a Fulfilling Life: By aligning the Diamond’s facets, individuals can achieve a deep sense of fulfillment and achievement, leading to a sustainable and meaningful existence.

Learn more with 10X University

10X University is a learning community dedicated to learning the Theory of Holistic Perspective with the vision and mission to:

Live with purpose and meaning in everyday-life.

© 2024 Theory of Holistic Perspective

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify sages (early philosophers) across historical traditions.
• Explain the connection between ancient philosophy and the origin of the sciences.
• Describe philosophy as a discipline that makes coherent sense of a whole.
• Summarize the broad and diverse origins of philosophy.

It is difficult to define philosophy. In fact, to do so is itself a philosophical activity, since philosophers are attempting to gain the broadest and most fundamental conception of the world as it exists. The world includes nature, consciousness, morality, beauty, and social organizations. So the content available for philosophy is both broad and deep. Because of its very nature, philosophy considers a range of subjects, and philosophers cannot automatically rule anything out. Whereas other disciplines allow for basic assumptions, philosophers cannot be bound by such assumptions. This open-endedness makes philosophy a somewhat awkward and confusing subject for students. There are no easy answers to the questions of what philosophy studies or how one does philosophy. Nevertheless, in this chapter, we can make some progress on these questions by (1) looking at past examples of philosophers, (2) considering one compelling definition of philosophy, and (3) looking at the way academic philosophers today actually practice philosophy.

Historical Origins of Philosophy

One way to begin to understand philosophy is to look at its history. The historical origins of philosophical thinking and exploration vary around the globe. The word philosophy derives from ancient Greek, in which the philosopher is a lover or pursuer ( philia ) of wisdom ( sophia ). But the earliest Greek philosophers were not known as philosophers; they were simply known as sages . The sage tradition provides an early glimpse of philosophical thought in action. Sages are sometimes associated with mathematical and scientific discoveries and at other times with their political impact. What unites these figures is that they demonstrate a willingness to be skeptical of traditions, a curiosity about the natural world and our place in it, and a commitment to applying reason to understand nature, human nature, and society better. The overview of the sage tradition that follows will give you a taste of philosophy’s broad ambitions as well as its focus on complex relations between different areas of human knowledge. There are some examples of women who made contributions to philosophy and the sage tradition in Greece, India, and China, but these were patriarchal societies that did not provide many opportunities for women to participate in philosophical and political discussions.

The Sages of India, China, Africa, and Greece

In classical Indian philosophy and religion, sages play a central role in both religious mythology and in the practice of passing down teaching and instruction through generations. The Seven Sages, or Saptarishi (seven rishis in the Sanskrit language), play an important role in sanatana dharma , the eternal duties that have come to be identified with Hinduism but that predate the establishment of the religion. The Seven Sages are partially considered wise men and are said to be the authors of the ancient Indian texts known as the Vedas . But they are partly mythic figures as well, who are said to have descended from the gods and whose reincarnation marks the passing of each age of Manu (age of man or epoch of humanity). The rishis tended to live monastic lives, and together they are thought of as the spiritual and practical forerunners of Indian gurus or teachers, even up to today. They derive their wisdom, in part, from spiritual forces, but also from tapas , or the meditative, ascetic, and spiritual practices they perform to gain control over their bodies and minds. The stories of the rishis are part of the teachings that constitute spiritual and philosophical practice in contemporary Hinduism.

Figure 1.2 depicts a scene from the Matsya Purana, where Manu, the first man whose succession marks the prehistorical ages of Earth, sits with the Seven Sages in a boat to protect them from a mythic flood that is said to have submerged the world. The king of serpents guides the boat, which is said to have also contained seeds, plants, and animals saved by Manu from the flood.

Despite the fact that classical Indian culture is patriarchal, women figures play an important role in the earliest writings of the Vedic tradition (the classical Indian religious and philosophical tradition). These women figures are partly connected to the Indian conception of the fundamental forces of nature—energy, ability, strength, effort, and power—as feminine. This aspect of God was thought to be present at the creation of the world. The Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic writings, contains hymns that tell the story of Ghosha, a daughter of Rishi Kakshivan, who had a debilitating skin condition (probably leprosy) but devoted herself to spiritual practices to learn how to heal herself and eventually marry. Another woman, Maitreyi, is said to have married the Rishi Yajnavalkya (himself a god who was cast into mortality by a rival) for the purpose of continuing her spiritual training. She was a devoted ascetic and is said to have composed 10 of the hymns in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there is a famous dialogue between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya in the Upanishads (another early, foundational collection of texts in the Vedic tradition) about attachment to material possessions, which cannot give a person happiness, and the achievement of ultimate bliss through knowledge of the Absolute (God).

Another woman sage named Gargi also participates in a celebrated dialogue with Yajnavalkya on natural philosophy and the fundamental elements and forces of the universe. Gargi is characterized as one of the most knowledgeable sages on the topic, though she ultimately concedes that Yajnavalkya has greater knowledge. In these brief episodes, these ancient Indian texts record instances of key women who attained a level of enlightenment and learning similar to their male counterparts. Unfortunately, this early equality between the sexes did not last. Over time Indian culture became more patriarchal, confining women to a dependent and subservient role. Perhaps the most dramatic and cruel example of the effects of Indian patriarchy was the ritual practice of sati , in which a widow would sometimes immolate herself, partly in recognition of the “fact” that following the death of her husband, her current life on Earth served no further purpose (Rout 2016). Neither a widow’s in-laws nor society recognized her value.

In similar fashion to the Indian tradition, the sage ( sheng ) tradition is important for Chinese philosophy . Confucius , one of the greatest Chinese writers, often refers to ancient sages, emphasizing their importance for their discovery of technical skills essential to human civilization, for their role as rulers and wise leaders, and for their wisdom. This emphasis is in alignment with the Confucian appeal to a well-ordered state under the guidance of a “ philosopher-king .” This point of view can be seen in early sage figures identified by one of the greatest classical authors in the Chinese tradition, as the “Nest Builder” and “Fire Maker” or, in another case, the “Flood Controller.” These names identify wise individuals with early technological discoveries. The Book of Changes , a classical Chinese text, identifies the Five (mythic) Emperors as sages, including Yao and Shun, who are said to have built canoes and oars, attached carts to oxen, built double gates for defense, and fashioned bows and arrows (Cheng 1983). Emperor Shun is also said to have ruled during the time of a great flood, when all of China was submerged. Yü is credited with having saved civilization by building canals and dams.

These figures are praised not only for their political wisdom and long rule, but also for their filial piety and devotion to work. For instance, Mencius, a Confucian philosopher, relates a story of Shun’s care for his blind father and wicked stepmother, while Yü is praised for his selfless devotion to work. In these ways, the Chinese philosophical traditions, such as Confucianism and Mohism, associate key values of their philosophical enterprises with the great sages of their history. Whether the sages were, in fact, actual people or, as many scholars have concluded, mythical forebearers, they possessed the essential human virtue of listening and responding to divine voices. This attribute can be inferred from the Chinese script for sheng , which bears the symbol of an ear as a prominent feature. So the sage is one who listens to insight from the heavens and then is capable of sharing that wisdom or acting upon it to the benefit of his society (Cheng 1983). This idea is similar to one found in the Indian tradition, where the most important texts, the Vedas, are known as shruti , or works that were heard through divine revelation and only later written down.

Although Confucianism is a venerable world philosophy, it is also highly patriarchal and resulted in the widespread subordination of women. The position of women in China began to change only after the Communist Revolution (1945–1952). While some accounts of Confucianism characterize men and women as emblematic of two opposing forces in the natural world, the Yin and Yang, this view of the sexes developed over time and was not consistently applied. Chinese women did see a measure of independence and freedom with the influence of Buddhism and Daoism, each of which had a more liberal view of the role of women (Adler 2006).

A detailed and important study of the sage tradition in Africa is provided by Henry Odera Oruka (1990), who makes the case that prominent folk sages in African tribal history developed complex philosophical ideas. Oruka interviewed tribal Africans identified by their communities as sages, and he recorded their sayings and ideas, confining himself to those sayings that demonstrated “a rational method of inquiry into the real nature of things” (Oruka 1990, 150). He recognized a tension in what made these sages philosophically interesting: they articulated the received wisdom of their tradition and culture while at the same time maintaining a critical distance from that culture, seeking a rational justification for the beliefs held by the culture.

Connections

The chapter on the early history of philosophy covers this topic in greater detail.

Among the ancient Greeks, it is common to identify seven sages. The best-known account is provided by Diogenes Laërtius, whose text Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a canonical resource on early Greek philosophy. The first and most important sage is Thales of Miletus . Thales traveled to Egypt to study with the Egyptian priests, where he became one of the first Greeks to learn astronomy. He is known for bringing back to Greece knowledge of the calendar, dividing the year into 365 days, tracking the progress of the sun from solstice to solstice, and—somewhat dramatically—predicting a solar eclipse in 585 BCE. The eclipse occurred on the day of a battle between the Medes and Lydians. It is possible that Thales used knowledge of Babylonian astronomical records to guess the year and location of the eclipse. This mathematical and astronomical feat is one of Thales’s several claims to sagacity. In addition, he is said to have calculated the height of the pyramids using the basic geometry of similar triangles and measuring shadows at a certain time of day. He is also reported to have predicted a particularly good year for olives: he bought up all the olive presses and then made a fortune selling those presses to farmers wanting to turn their olives into oil. Together, these scientific and technical achievements suggest that at least part of Thales’s wisdom can be attributed to a very practical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge of the natural world. If that were all Thales was known for, he might be called the first scientist or engineer. But he also made more basic claims about the nature and composition of the universe; for instance, he claimed that all matter was fundamentally made of up water. He also argued that everything that moved on its own possessed a soul and that the soul itself was immortal. These claims demonstrate a concern about the fundamental nature of reality.

Another of the seven sages was Solon , a famed political leader. He introduced the “Law of Release” to Athens, which cancelled all personal debts and freed indentured servants, or “debt-slaves” who had been consigned to service based on a personal debt they were unable to repay. In addition, he established a constitutional government in Athens with a representative body, a procedure for taxation, and a series of economic reforms. He was widely admired as a political leader but voluntarily stepped down so that he would not become a tyrant. He was finally forced to flee Athens when he was unable to persuade the members of the Assembly (the ruling body) to resist the rising tyranny of one of his relatives, Pisistratus. When he arrived in exile, he was reportedly asked whom he considered to be happy, to which he replied, “One ought to count no man happy until he is dead.” Aristotle interpreted this statement to mean that happiness was not a momentary experience, but a quality reflective of someone’s entire life.

Beginnings of Natural Philosophy

The sage tradition is a largely prehistoric tradition that provides a narrative about how intellect, wisdom, piety, and virtue led to the innovations central to flourishing of ancient civilizations. Particularly in Greece, the sage tradition blends into a period of natural philosophy, where ancient scientists or philosophers try to explain nature using rational methods. Several of the early Greek schools of philosophy were centered on their respective views of nature. Followers of Thales, known as the Milesians , were particularly interested in the underlying causes of natural change. Why does water turn to ice? What happens when winter passes into spring? Why does it seem like the stars and planets orbit Earth in predictable patterns? From Aristotle we know that Thales thought there was a difference between material elements that participate in change and elements that contain their own source of motion. This early use of the term element did not have the same meaning as the scientific meaning of the word today in a field like chemistry. But Thales thought material elements bear some fundamental connection to water in that they have the capacity to move and alter their state. By contrast, other elements had their own internal source of motion, of which he cites the magnet and amber (which exhibits forces of static electricity when rubbed against other materials). He said that these elements have “soul.” This notion of soul, as a principle of internal motion, was influential across ancient and medieval natural philosophy. In fact, the English language words animal and animation are derived from the Latin word for soul ( anima ).

Similarly, early thinkers like Xenophanes began to formulate explanations for natural phenomena. For instance, he explained rainbows, the sun, the moon, and St. Elmo’s fire (luminous, electrical discharges) as apparitions of the clouds. This form of explanation, describing some apparent phenomenon as the result of an underlying mechanism, is paradigmatic of scientific explanation even today. Parmenides, the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy, used logic to conclude that whatever fundamentally exists must be unchanging because if it ever did change, then at least some aspect of it would cease to exist. But that would imply that what exists could not exist—which seems to defy logic. Parmenides is not saying that there is no change, but that the changes we observe are a kind of illusion. Indeed, this point of view was highly influential, not only for Plato and Aristotle, but also for the early atomists, like Democritus , who held that all perceived qualities are merely human conventions. Underlying all these appearances, Democritus reasoned, are only atomic, unchanging bits of matter flowing through a void. While this ancient Greek view of atoms is quite different from the modern model of atoms, the very idea that every observable phenomenon has a basis in underlying pieces of matter in various configurations clearly connects modern science to the earliest Greek philosophers.

Along these lines, the Pythagoreans provide a very interesting example of a community of philosophers engaged in understanding the natural world and how best to live in it. You may be familiar with Pythagoras from his Pythagorean theorem, a key principle in geometry establishing a relationship between the sides of a right-angled triangle. Specifically, the square formed by the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the two squares formed by the remaining two sides. In the figure below, the area of the square formed by c is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares formed by a and b. The figure represents how Pythagoras would have conceptualized the theorem.

The Pythagoreans were excellent mathematicians, but they were more interested in how mathematics explained the natural world. In particular, Pythagoras recognized relationships between line segments and shapes, such as the Pythagorean theorem describes, but also between numbers and sounds, by virtue of harmonics and the intervals between notes. Similar regularities can be found in astronomy. As a result, Pythagoras reasoned that all of nature is generated according to mathematical regularities. This view led the Pythagoreans to believe that there was a unified, rational structure to the universe, that the planets and stars exhibit harmonic properties and may even produce music, that musical tones and harmonies could have healing powers, that the soul is immortal and continuously reincarnated, and that animals possess souls that ought to be respected and valued. As a result, the Pythagorean community was defined by serious scholarship as well as strict rules about diet, clothing, and behavior.

Additionally, in the early Pythagorean communities, it was possible for women to participate and contribute to philosophical thought and discovery. Pythagoras himself was said to have been inspired to study philosophy by the Delphic priestess Themistoclea. His wife Theano is credited with contributing to important discoveries in the realms of numbers and optics. She is said to have written a treatise, On Piety , which further applies Pythagorean philosophy to various aspects of practical life (Waithe 1987). Myia, the daughter of this illustrious couple, was also an active and productive part of the community. At least one of her letters has survived in which she discusses the application of Pythagorean philosophy to motherhood. The Pythagorean school is an example of how early philosophical and scientific thinking combines with religious, cultural, and ethical beliefs and practices to embrace many different aspects of life.

How It All Hangs Together

Closer to the present day, in 1962, Wilfrid Sellars , a highly influential 20th-century American philosopher, wrote a chapter called “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man” in Frontiers of Science and Philosophy . He opens the essay with a dramatic and concise description of philosophy: “The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.” If we spend some time trying to understand what Sellars means by this definition, we will be in a better position to understand the academic discipline of philosophy. First, Sellars emphasizes that philosophy’s goal is to understand a very wide range of topics—in fact, the widest possible range. That is to say, philosophers are committed to understanding everything insofar as it can be understood. This is important because it means that, on principle, philosophers cannot rule out any topic of study. However, for a philosopher not every topic of study deserves equal attention. Some things, like conspiracy theories or paranoid delusions, are not worth studying because they are not real. It may be worth understanding why some people are prone to paranoid delusions or conspiratorial thinking, but the content of these ideas is not worth investigating. Other things may be factually true, such as the daily change in number of the grains of sand on a particular stretch of beach, but they are not worth studying because knowing that information will not teach us about how things hang together. So a philosopher chooses to study things that are informative and interesting—things that provide a better understanding of the world and our place in it.

To make judgments about which areas are interesting or worthy of study, philosophers need to cultivate a special skill. Sellars describes this philosophical skill as a kind of know-how (a practical, engaged type of knowledge, similar to riding a bike or learning to swim). Philosophical know-how, Sellars says, has to do with knowing your way around the world of concepts and being able to understand and think about how concepts connect, link up, support, and rely upon one another—in short, how things hang together. Knowing one’s way around the world of concepts also involves knowing where to look to find interesting discoveries and which places to avoid, much like a good fisherman knows where to cast his line. Sellars acknowledges that other academics and scientists know their way around the concepts in their field of study much like philosophers do. The difference is that these other inquirers confine themselves to a specific field of study or a particular subject matter, while philosophers want to understand the whole. Sellars thinks that this philosophical skill is most clearly demonstrated when we try to understand the connection between the natural world as we experience it directly (the “manifest image”) and the natural world as science explains it (the “scientific image”). He suggests that we gain an understanding of the nature of philosophy by trying to reconcile these two pictures of the world that most people understand independently.

Read Like a Philosopher

“philosophy and the scientific image of man”.

This essay, “ Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man ” by Wilfrid Sellars, has been republished several times and can be found online. Read through the essay with particular focus on the first section. Consider the following study questions:

• What is the difference between knowing how and knowing that? Are these concepts always distinct? What does it mean for philosophical knowledge to be a kind of know-how?
• What do you think Sellars means when he says that philosophers “have turned other special subject-matters to non-philosophers over the past 2500 years”?
• Sellars describes philosophy as “bringing a picture into focus,” but he is also careful to recognize challenges with this metaphor as it relates to the body of human knowledge. What are those challenges? Why is it difficult to imagine all of human knowledge as a picture or image?
• What is the scientific image of man in the world? What is the manifest image of man in the world? How are they different? And why are these two images the primary images that need to be brought into focus so that philosophy may have an eye on the whole?

Unlike other subjects that have clearly defined subject matter boundaries and relatively clear methods of exploration and analysis, philosophy intentionally lacks clear boundaries or methods. For instance, your biology textbook will tell you that biology is the “science of life.” The boundaries of biology are fairly clear: it is an experimental science that studies living things and the associated material necessary for life. Similarly, biology has relatively well-defined methods. Biologists, like other experimental scientists, broadly follow something called the “scientific method.” This is a bit of a misnomer, unfortunately, because there is no single method that all the experimental sciences follow. Nevertheless, biologists have a range of methods and practices, including observation, experimentation, and theory comparison and analysis, that are fairly well established and well known among practitioners. Philosophy doesn’t have such easy prescriptions—and for good reason. Philosophers are interested in gaining the broadest possible understanding of things, whether that be nature, what is possible, morals, aesthetics, political organizations, or any other field or concept.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Nathan Smith
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
• Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-1-what-is-philosophy

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Holistic Thinking: 3 Best Ways And Examples To Think Holistically

• Updated June 2, 2022

Holistic thinking or systems thinking, refers to a way of thinking in which a person can see the big picture. They can see patterns and concepts that oversee the details, which may be missed by people who think more analytically.

The interconnectedness of all things is apparent to the holistic thinker. Rather than thinking analytically or in specifics, the holistic approach involves noticing and taking into account patterns and hints representing a more extensive system of occurrence in a given situation.

According to  Oxford Languages , the philosophical definition of holism is:  ‘the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.’

Oxford Languages also offer a medical definition of holism:  ‘the treating of the whole person, taking mental and social factors into account, rather than just the physical symptoms of a disease.’

Holistic thinking requires that you give attention to contexts and relationships in any given situation. It considers the interplay of various elements within a situation that can influence that situation’s outcome.

For example, the holistic thinker will notice that a group meeting that’s not going well may have something to do with the relationship between team member X and member Y, rather than the group’s capabilities as a whole. 

Holistic thinking looks at the background elements of a situation, understanding events regarding the context in which they’re taking place. The opposite of holistic thinking is analytic thinking, in which a larger system of occurrence is broken down into details and investigated as separate or distinct from the whole. 

Analytic thinking credits individuals and specifics for the outcomes of events, while holistic thinking gives credit to the interconnectedness of all elements or aspects of the event. Analytic thinkers look at the foreground of the events taking place but tend to disregard or overlook the frame or context. 

Examples of holistic thinking

Holistic thinkers see the whole picture or the big picture. In business, the term ‘holistic thinking’ may sometimes be used interchangeably with ‘systems thinking.’

TechTarget defines systems thinking as ‘a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on how a system’s constituent parts interrelate and how systems work overtime and within the context of larger systems.’

Holistic medicine and systems thinking

To better understand how holistic thinking works, consider holistic medicine.

Holistic-minded medical practitioners consider the relationship between a patient’s mind, body, and spirit when addressing illness. They look for ways to improve on overall life balance.

Instead of solely providing medicine for a patient’s ailments or condition (specific thinking), holistic doctors or practitioners would investigate several other aspects of the patient’s life and lifestyle to eradicate health problems that are arising. They consider both internal and external forces that may be causing health issues.

Rather than relying on pharmaceuticals alone to treat an issue, holistic doctors would advise, spend time explaining as well as encourage the patient to consciously look after all aspects of their health through a life balance, which includes, exercise, diet, sleep , and sufficient rest and relaxation, especially in cases where the patient’s issues stem from prolonged stress , poor nutrition, or lack of regular physical movement.

Linear Thought Process

Contrary to holistic thinking, the linear thought process involves step-by-step thinking.

People who utilize linear thought processes, solve problems with a definite beginning point, follow specific related steps, and arrive at their solutions after the procedure. Their line of thinking flows sequentially and straightforwardly.

Linear thinkers are regarded as left-brained, this is because the left side of the brain is in charge of processing thoughts through logical and analytical methods. They rely on rules and patterns and uphold uniformity or consistency. As analytic thinkers, they constantly seek data and existing solutions to similar problems before moving into action.

Why is holistic thinking important? 

The blind men and the elephant.

There’s an old Indian parable, popularized in the modern-day by American poet John Godfrey Saxe, about six blind men introduced to an elephant. Without the use of sight, they must rely on their sense of touch to understand what is standing in front of them. We’ve included the poem below to help you better understand the importance of holistic thinking.

The Blind Men and the Elephant – John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined, who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind), that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall, against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl: “God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!”

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: “Ho! what have we here, so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear, this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!”

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take, the squirming trunk within his hands, “I see,” quoth he, the elephant is very like a snake!”

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee: “What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain,” quoth he; “Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree.”

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; “E’en the blindest man can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!”

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope, than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope, “I see,” quothe he, “the elephant is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long, each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean, and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!

A lesson on perspective

Saxe’s poetic rendering of this ancient parable on perspective offers valuable insight into the importance of holistic thinking.

The holistic approach recognizes and emphasizes that an individual standpoint cannot see the whole picture, and therefore can not attain an objective view of an event. Events must be viewed in their larger context to be fully understood and make effective decisions.

The importance of holistic thinking in business organizations

Holistic thinking, or ‘systems thinking,’ offers a range of benefits to businesses. Taking a holistic culture within your operations and strategies benefits your business by:  

1. Empowering employees

In a holistic business approach, all employees get a chance to express themselves.

Each employee is encouraged to share their views and insights, which broadens each team member’s perspective and encourages a big picture mentality. Further, when employees feel heard and acknowledged, workplace morale increases, which in turn elicits business growth.  

2. Gaining fresh insight and perspective

Businesses grow when each employee is clear about their individual and group goals.

Taking a holistic thinkers approach means that fresh perspectives and potential risks are brought to the surface, instead of being swept under the rug had the business not considered such a broad range of opinions and viewpoints.

For example, your marketing team has a great idea about a social media campaign based on current events. The sales team agrees with the idea, envisioning greater traffic and lead generation, thus greater conversions.

However, the PR manager may have the insight to understand that the current event that the previous two departments want to profit from may be controversial, too soon, or will give the company a bad reputation.

Therefore, it would be better for the company’s reputation to take a different approach. By incorporating varying perspectives, the business, as a whole, can revisit the idea and figure out a more public-friendly approach.

An example of such a situation would be riding on the current wave of social injustice. While it’s great that companies stand up to support issues within society, many consumers are beginning to understand that showing support for these initiatives increases profit.

Therefore, a company may only be showing support in ads or on social media for the sole purpose of improving its reputation and boosting its profits.

Instead, a holistic-minded team would understand that it would be far more appropriate to show real support, such as changing internal processes and procedures to create real cultural change within the company to address the injustice. Rather than simply adding a banner or visual scenes to their Facebook profile picture and hoping for the best.

How to think holistically

If you’re running a business and you’re just starting out, or you’ve been in operation for years but want to improve your success rate, then holistic thinking may be just what you need. If you want to utilize systems thinking in your business decisions, strategies, and campaigns, consider the following tips:

1. Keep your overall goals and objectives in mind

Thinking holistically involves delegating authority among team members to take care of specific needs and issues, but at the same time make sure that everyone keeps the big picture in mind. With a degree of focus on the big picture at all times, you’re likely to notice subtle patterns and systems that can inform your decision-making process and increase your chances of yielding positive results.

2. Accurately identify the problem

Instead of following the first solution that comes to mind when your business is facing an issue, thinking holistically involves taking a moment to step back and understanding what the actual problem is.

It’s tempting to take action as soon as you get a spark of inspiration, but if the problem you’re so eager to begin solving isn’t the actual problem, your efforts will have been in vain.

3. Notice patterns and connections

The ability to observe patterns and interconnections means you have the big picture mentality or you have the ability to implement systems thinking. In business, it helps to bring your attention and awareness to patterns across all departments and strategies.

For example, instead of seeing a failure and considering it to be exclusive to one strategy, consider the big picture – how similar failures have occurred in the past, what else may have contributed to that failure, and what the difference is between your failures and your success regarding all aspects of your approach.

This takes into account so many different aspects of the business that linear thinking or a narrow focus may completely miss. Thinking holistically allows you to implement strategy formation to solve the problem once and for all across multiple departments.

Big picture or holistic thinking doesn’t ignore the specifics; it incorporates them. It doesn’t allocate blame or responsibility on an individual idea, person, or concept but rather considers how everything is connected and seeks to identify that connection.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sign up to our newsletter!

More articles

How to say goodbye in the best way—formal and informal goodbye’s, best morning routine checklist—10 helpful steps to boost your day, how to break codependency to foster a healthy relationship in 5 ways, 10 books on finding your purpose to begin living your best life, 9 best books for self-awareness to help you in your life’s journey, 10 books about finding your passion and living an incredible life, looking for practical self-care.

Sign up now to receive your free ebook and more practical self-care tips, advice and products, in your inbox.

**Please check your spam folder!**

How to Write a Holistic Style Essay

Sharon penn.

Before you write an essay that is to be graded holistically, you must understand the process. Holistic grading is more specific and it puts some control in the hands of the student. With a holistic approach, the student is aware of a scoring rubric, which can differ from assignment to assignment. This example follows the New Jersey Registered Holistic Scoring Rubric, used to score Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) and High School Statewide Assessment (HSPA) essays. Scores are given in four different areas, and can range from 6 (superior command) to 1 (inadequate command).

Explore this article

• Organize your ideas
• Proofread your essay

things needed

• Library resources for research

1 Organize your ideas

Organize your ideas to support a well-focused thesis. Make sure you have an opening and closing to your essay. There should be a logical progression of ideas from start to finish. If you are a good student who does a lot of reading, you may want to stretch your capabilities and knowledge and take a compositional risk. If you do this well, you will receive a 6. Even if your attempts are not completely correct, you will get a 5 (strong command) for trying. Another important part of content and organization is the use of detail to support your main idea or thesis statement. You should have enough details, and they should be effective in proving your point. Transitions from one thought to another should be used effectively.

2 Use words

Use words, verb tenses and modifiers correctly. Subject-verb agreement and pronoun usage should have very few errors to achieve a grade of 6. A score of 4 (adequate command) is given to a student who has some errors that do not interfere with the meaning she is trying to convey. You should speak with your teacher to see if you should risk using a word you are not completely sure about. Some teachers will give you credit for trying, if you come close to the meaning, and others will subtract from your score.

Make use of a variety of sentence constructions to achieve a high score in sentence construction. An essay using the same sentence structure throughout becomes monotonous and, even if the sentences are correct, will achieve a score of only 3 (partial command). If your sentences are varied in type, structure and length and contain few errors, you can achieve a 5 or 6.

4 Proofread your essay

Proofread your essay to receive a high score in mechanics (spelling, punctuation and capitalization). If the essay is a homework assignment and you have the time, write a first draft straight through to the end and then edit for mechanics. If you have the luxury of time, let it sit for a day and go back to it. You may find that in using this technique, errors jump off the page for your correction.

• Read over your essay to be certain you have all the required elements.
• If you don't understand what is required, ask. The rubric explains how you will be graded.
• Writing an essay to be scored holistically gives you the control you need to achieve a good score by following the rubric.

About the Author

Sharon Penn is a writer based in South Florida. A professional writer since 1981, she has created numerous materials for a Princeton advertising agency. Her articles have appeared in "Golf Journal" and on industry blogs. Penn has traveled extensively, is an avid golfer and is eager to share her interests with her readers. She holds a Master of Science in Education.

Related Articles

How to Make an Essay for the Accuplacer Test

How to Write a Good High School English Essay

Volumizing Haircuts for People With Fine Hair

How to Check an Essay

How to Write a 100-Word Essay

Instructions for the Westcott iPoint Pencil Sharpener

Three Components of a Good Paragraph

College Placement Tests for English

How to Handle Being Insulted

How to Test ESL Speaking to Assess Levels

How Long Are GMAT Scores Valid?

How to Write a Timed Essay

What Is a Diagnostic Reading Assessment?

Challenges Facing Essay Writing

How to Put a Definition in an Essay

Does Curling Your Eyelashes Really Make a Difference?

How to Pass the GED Essay Exams

TOEFL Essay Writing Tips

How to Write an Essay in 150 Words

How to Write a 250 Word College Essay

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .