Theoretical Comparison 2: Reductionism Vs. Holism

In social work, there are many different theories and approaches to consider utilizing with clients. However, at the very base of it all, decisions between the holistic approach and the reductionist approach may decide how we help our clients.

According to Ashford and LeCroy (2010), “The central principle of reductionism is that ultimate explanations can be found when issues are reduced to their smallest possible components.” As social workers, this approach states that we separate our client’s issues, such as dealing with lack of transportation, then unemployment, etc. Furthermore, reductionism “supports and legitimizes the notions that we can both get it right and, if something goes wrong, reverse it” (Rogers, Luton, Biggs, Biggs, Blignaut, Choles, and Tangwe, 2013). Because each item is considered a separate issue, clients and case managers may build up separate goals. According to reductionism, if the goal for one issue is not met, the situation does not affect the client’s life anywhere else.  An example of reductionism would be if a client does not pursue childcare, it should not affect their employment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is holism. “Holism strives for a balance and harmony within the person” (Ashcroft, 2011). Holism looks at the entire person, rather than individual issues. Furthermore, “…the holism paradigm attends to a variety of variables impacting on a person, interactional and transactional in nature” (2011). While holism focuses on the client and any internal issues, it also looks at the environment and any issues caused externally. An example of holism in action is assessing a client’s poor mental health causing unemployment, which in turn caused lack of money for food and housing. Holism dictates that each issue feeds into others, and therefore cannot be neglected.

The holistic and reductionist approaches are complete radical opposites, and therefore social workers may need to find a middle ground. Identifying a root cause of a client’s issues may be a solution, rather than fixing everything one by one, or at the same time.

Ashcroft, R. (2011). Health and Wellbeing: Starting with a Critical Pedagogical Model. Social Work Education, 30(6), 610-622. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.586558

Ashford, J., & LeCroy, C. (2010). Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. 4th ed., pp.134. California: WADSWORTH

Rogers, K. H., Luton, R., Biggs, H., Biggs, R., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., & ... Tangwe, P. (2013). Fostering Complexity Thinking in Action Research for Change in Social--Ecological Systems. Ecology & Society, 18(2), 68-79. doi:10.5751/ES-05330-180231