HOLISTIC METHOD Holism is a term originally coined by the South African Scholar Jan Christiaan Smuts from the Greek word holos, which means whole. He applied the term in categorizing the new type of theories in the physical sciences that were gaining widespread recognition in his time. These new evolutionary or dynamic theories (Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, 1859; Henri Becquerel's theory of radioactivity, 1895; Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, 1915) had finally displaced the old inherited mechanistic scientific theories of Newton and the pre-Darwin world. This post-Darwinian type of scientific theory conceived of the physical world as an evolving dynamic whole, as opposed to the "atomistic" theories, which held a static or deterministic view of the world. These holistic theories are essentially couched in the belief that the whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts, but that the parts are related in such a way that their functioning is conditioned by their relationship to each other.

For the holist, then, explanations of reality cannot be done by the application of universal laws, with successful predictions the only form of verification. Rather, an event or action is explained by identifying its place in a pattern that characterizes the ongoing processes of change in the whole system. The formal methods utilized by mainstream economists produce models that are capable of yielding lawlike statements. These formal laws are not empirical generalizations but are logical deductions that make a priori statements about necessary connections between abstract entities. Holists recognize that formal methods often fail to explain the nature of social reality. Thus they engage in the task of developing their own explanations of social phenomena, the nature of which has ruled out other than incidental use of formal methods.

Their approach looks behind such abstract variables of mainstream economics as savings, investment, competition, utility/ profit maximization and efficiency to the attitudes and behaviors of real economic actors and to the institutional environment in which they must operate. They focus on what in their circumstances leads people or firms to save or invest. For example, traditional growth theory talks about the effect on output of changes in capital/output ratios or saving rates. Holists want to know what causes the mobilization of savings, capital, and labor. Thus they are necessarily drawn to look at social, political, and cultural factors as well as purely economic variables.

THORSTEIN VEBLEN, the recognized founder of the institutionalist tradition, brought this holist philosophical orientation to the study of the U.S economy. He conceived of the economic order as an evolving scheme of things or cultural process. His approach has remained the point of reference from which later institutionalists and other political economists have criticized the narrow "market economics of choice" espoused by mainstream economics.

Although the holistic intellectual orientation has been part of the thought process of both social and physical scientists since the middle of the nineteenth century, recent attention to holism by philosophers of science has led to a coherent expression of its methodology. Most notably the works of Abraham Kaplan and Paul Diesing each contain explicit presentations of the holist model of explanation. They seek to uncover the implicit structural framework which facilitates holist theorists' explanations of reality. There is a commonality among holist theories which includes their conception of reality, the structure of their explanations, the primacy of their subject matter, and their particular form of logic.

Conception of Logic. Holistic social scientists argue that social reality must be studied as a whole human system in its natural setting. Obviously, human wholes will tend to differ greatly with respect to size, complexity, degree of self-sufficiency, and relationships to the larger wholes that include them. However, the crucial element of this view is the concept of relationship or unity. That is the holist standpoint includes the belief that human systems tend to develop a characteristic wholeness or integrity. This unity may take the form of a set of values that expresses itself throughout the system, or it may be that a particular socioeconomic structure tends to condition everything else. Holists may disagree on whether this unity derives from some basic source (for example, religion, ethics, technology, personality) or from some complex interweaving of a number of factors, but they all agree that the unity is there.

The implication is that the characteristics of a part are largely determined by the whole to which it belongs and by its particular relationship with the other parts in the system. Thus, if two superficially similar parts of different systems, say markets, are compared closely, they will be found to vary in characteristic ways. Take the example of markets in less-developed countries. Some economic development experts observed that people spent a large amount of time haggling over prices in local output markets in a particular peasant society. They set up a pilot project wherein a fixed price supermarket replaced the old peasant market. It was a failure because the new market did not satisfy the social intercourse provided by the old market system. Thus superficially similar parts, markets, provided different functions in different systems and thus the definition of efficiency also would vary between the systems.

Since holists acknowledge the organic unity of human wholes, they are obligated to study the whole living system rather than one part taken out of context. The context of a particular event is important because the character of any given part is largely conditioned by the whole to which it belongs and by its particular function and location in the larger system. Thus, reality for holists is viewed as a process of evolutionary change driven by the dynamic interaction between the parts and the whole.

The approach which has achieved the greatest success in constructing holist explanations in the social sciences is case studies using what is termed the participant-observer method. The investigators become "socialized"-- that is, they allow the subject matter to impress upon them its norms and to instill within them its categories. In remaining close to the concrete reality of the system studied, holists are in a unique position to perceive a wide variety of recurrent themes (importance of ceremony, target profits/markup pricing, etc) that appear in a variety of contexts. As an observer, the researcher looks for themes which illuminate the systems wholeness, that is, which contribute to its individuality or oneness. It is in this sense that holists find general laws (law of demand) and universal categories (utility) especially unsuited to the task of describing the unity of the particular system unless they have been discovered by observation to be important in this particular system.

Researchers construct tentative hypotheses about parts of the system out of the recurrent themes that become obvious to them in the course of the socialization process. These hypotheses or interpretations of themes are tested by consulting a wide variety of data (previous case studies, survey data, personal observations, and so forth). Gradually, as socialization proceeds, researchers become increasingly attuned to accurate perception and interpretation of the recurrent themes and formulation of validated hypotheses. Holists use this experience and the various pieces of evidence to build up a many-sided, complex picture of the subject matter. Unfortunately, this technique can never produce the rigorous certainty espoused by logical positivists; it can only indicate varying degrees of plausibility.

Eventually the holist proceeds to the last step, which is building a model. This type of model with its emphasis on recurrent themes within or around the individual system is aptly known to philosophers of science as the pattern model of explanation or STORY TELLING. It is constructed by linking hypotheses or themes in a network or pattern, with the account of a particular part emphasizing the multiplicity of connections among that part, other parts and the whole system.

Conception of Reality. Another distinguishing aspect of holist methodology can be found in the structure of their explanations. The structure of holistic theories is concatenated (linked together) rather than hierarchical, as in formal theories. They are composed by linking several relatively independent parts, rather than by logically deducing an explanandum from an explanans. A concatenated theory with its several independent sections and subsections provides a many-sided, complex picture of the subject matter. The concatenated structure of holist explanations is necessitated in part by holists' conception of reality. Rather than say that we understand or explain something when we can predict it, holists say that we have an explanation for something when we understand its place in the whole.

Primacy of Subject Matter. Since holists do not attempt to subsume their particular system under general principles applicable to all systems, their concepts are relatively concrete, particularized, and close to the real system being described. The primacy of subject matter over method, then, is a crucial element of holist methodology. In contrast, formalists argue that the method is what is important and the problem is how to creatively use that scientific method to analyze any event to show that it is merely an example of a general law. Thus, an agents behavior, in whatever context, needs to be shown as an example of optimizing behavior. Holists claim that this approach distorts the subject by saying the context doesn't matter other than setting constraints on optimizing behavior. Holists attempt to generalize from the facts of experience about the working of the economy while formalists attempt to construct a model based on assumptions about how economic agents would behave if they acted rationally in their self-interest.

Form of Logic. The fourth and final characteristic of holistic concepts is that they are frequently, although not always, related dialectically. Two concepts are related dialectically when the development of one concept focuses attention on the other as an opposed concept that has been unknowingly denied or excluded by the first; or when it is discovered that the opposite concept is necessary for the validity or applicability of the first; and when it is the case that the real theoretical problem is the interrelation between the two concepts. There are many examples of dialectical logic in political economy: the ceremonial-technological dichotomy, pecuniary versus economic values, spread versus backwash effects, and so on.

One reason for the frequent occurrence of dialectical concepts in holist theories is that they serve to counterbalance the human tendency to be biased, one-sided, abstract. They make thought and theories more concrete. Researchers begin with some historically or empirically suggested theme and develop it until its shortcomings are clear enough to suggest an opposing, formally unacknowledged, theme; then the new theme is developed and related back to the first. In effect, dialectic is the logic of the concrete. The fact that dialectic is a correction of one-sidedness helps explain why many holistic works are not dialectical-- there is only so much time. The hope is that later researchers can combine several one-sided works into a more complex whole.

Conclusion. Holism has its limitations. First, because of their lack of precision, the use of holist concepts must be continuously monitored by reference to observation, cases, and examples. Holism separated from its empirical base easily becomes loose, uncontrolled speculation. A second problem is that the impreciseness and generality of holist concepts make any definitive verification of hypotheses impossible. As a consequence holists must remember that these theories are always tentative and subject to change.

Use of holist pattern models appears appropriate when an explanation involves many diverse factors, each of which is important; when the patterns or connections among those factors are important; and when these patterns can be observed in the particular case under study. Use of formal theoretical models appears more appropriate when one or two factors or laws determine what is to be explained and when these factors or laws are better known and understood than the specific instance. These formal models have their uses, even by political economists, for certain types of problems. Many of the issues political economists deal with, however, are better handled by holist methods.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Diesing, Paul. (1971) Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences. Chicago, Aldine-Atherton.

Kaplan, Abraham. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco, Chandler Publishing Co.

Wilber, Charles K.; with Robert S. Harrison. (1978) "The Methodological Basis of Institutional Economics: Pattern Model, Storytelling, and Holism", Journal of Economic Issues, vol XII, no 1: pp. 61-89.

Charles K. Wilber

University of Notre Dame