Individualism vs. Holism

[Guerrilla22]

From a recent debate I had. Individualist believe that there are no properties of groups (of people) that are not reductible to individual properties. In other words, all behavioral aspects of the group can be accounted for by examining the behavior of the individuals that make up the group, since a group is comprised of individauls, its behavior mirrors that of the individuals that comprise the group.

Holist believe that there are in fact behavioral properties that are deductible to the group alone. That certain behavior by a group (i.e. a politcl party, religion, ect.) can and does take on its own unique characteristics that would not be possible soley on the individual level.

I argued the Holist position, what do you all think?

[sailing to byzantium]

The Individual is a microcosm of the group. By examining the way the individual behaves one will find echoes of the way the wider group theyre a part of acts.

ie, If a person is selfish its because they're apart of a society in which selfishness is allowed to foster (tolerated, promoted).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:19 am
From a recent debate I had. Individualist believe that there are no properties of groups (of people) that are not reductible to individual properties. In other words, all behavioral aspects of the group can be accounted for by examining the behavior of the individuals that make up the group, since a group is comprised of individauls, its behavior mirrors that of the individuals that comprise the group.

Holist believe that there are in fact behavioral properties that are deductible to the group alone. That certain behavior by a group (i.e. a politcl party, religion, ect.) can and does take on its own unique characteristics that would not be possible soley on the individual level.

I argued the Holist position, what do you all think?
I am neither a holist nor a mechanicist.

And there are different answers for different subjects.

For instance, water is water because it is made up of water molecules, by I am not a leftist because I am made up of leftist cells.

But, mainly, I believe in the importance of relations, not of "individuals" or abstract "wholes" or "collectives".

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

If you only examine groups without examining individuals you are ignoring a large part of society. Ultimately everything comes down to the individual, because individuals and their interactions create society and the groups within it. That said, of course groups can act differently to how individuals can act. Groups are made up of both individuals and their interactions. So groups are not reducible to individuals.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10, 2007 04:45 pm
If you only examine groups without examining individuals you are ignoring a large part of society. Ultimately everything comes down to the individual, because individuals and their interactions create society and the groups within it. That said, of course groups can act differently to how individuals can act. Groups are made up of both individuals and their interactions. So groups are not reducible to individuals.
You've just contradicted yourself. You say 'everything comes down to the individual' then you argue that group behavior cannot be reducible to individuals. Which is it?

Given that the individual is socially constituted (and cannot be constituted on any other basis) requires our analysis to go beyond individual psychology.

[apathy maybe]

Everything comes down to the individual and interactions between individuals. These interactions and individuals influence other interactions and so on.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10, 2007 07:25 pm
Everything comes down to the individual and interactions between individuals. These interactions and individuals influence other interactions and so on.
Yes, but people don't interact in a realm of freedom. It is constrained by culture, history, institutional rules, role expectations and so on.

[AGramsci]

At the basis of the "Individualist" stance is that beings exist independent of society. But of course we do not. Once one becomes aware of an other, the social is created, and the social production that results is only possible by cooperation between those involved and once the social products are created, they become independent unto themselves.

The independence of social phenomena from the individual, though produced by the interaction of individuals, is the entirety of the recognized canon of sociology. Psychology is the study of the individual being, while sociology is concerned with what those interacting beings are creating. So this debate is quite settled by the Western tradition handed down to us.

[Guerrilla22]

My argument was based around a behavioralist approach to this. There are certain elements of the group that clearly would not be present at the individual level. For instance a teen ager who would not smoke on his own smokes with others in a group, because he wants to fit in. Or a person rioting because others were and he wa sinduced to do so.

[Hiero]

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families. -Margret Thatcher

Famous individualist quote.

The Communist theory comes under the holist theory. Though we look mostly at classes.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:07 pm
The Communist theory comes under the holist theory.
Nope, we are not "holists".

Fritjof Capra is a holist.


Though we look mostly at classes.

Yup. We believe society is a structured and contradictory totality. Neither the mere sum of social atoms, nor a "expressive" totality, in which abstract principles or "Ideas" govern the behaviour of individuals.

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

I believe there is society, society that is made up of individuals and interactions between individuals. To claim that there is something about groups or society as a whole that exists independently of those that make it up or their interactions is arguing a non-materialistic position.

It would be like saying that there is something special about iron, independent of its individual atoms and their interactions.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 05:14 pm
I believe there is society, society that is made up of individuals and interactions between individuals. To claim that there is something about groups or society as a whole that exists independently of those that make it up or their interactions is arguing a non-materialistic position.

It would be like saying that there is something special about iron, independent of its individual atoms and their interactions.
I was looking at this from a behavioralist perspective. My argument is that certain behavior exist at the group level that does not exist at the individual level. It was with someone from a sociology class I'm taking that I got in an argument with.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 06:14 pm
I believe there is society, society that is made up of individuals and interactions between individuals. To claim that there is something about groups or society as a whole that exists independently of those that make it up or their interactions is arguing a non-materialistic position.

It would be like saying that there is something special about iron, independent of its individual atoms and their interactions.
It seems pointless and mistaken to use iron as a metaphor for society.

Nevertheless you're right to point to individuals and their interactions - but you also need to account for ideologies (belief systems) and structure. People don't act without some notion of what they're doing (unlike atoms) and social life is structured in a multitude of ways, not totally fluid and random.

It's not anti-materialist to recognize the importance of non-material factors such as ideology or power and to recognize how they can constrain human action; it's only a mistake to see them as separate from real material relations. Marx puts it better than me:


The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will. [my emphasis]

It is actually idealist to see it any other way. If all we have is individuals and their interaction without constraints, then changing society is just a matter of will.

[Luís Henrique]

We shouldn't confuse materialism with a vulgar "thing-alism".

Even the most "material" instances of matter are made of internal relations. An atom is mostly empty space, not "matter", and the fact that it is composed by electrons circling a nucleus is as much important than the facts that there are electrons and nuclei.

Ideology is a very material thing, if we understan correctly the concept of "matter".

Luís Henrique