WHAT IS HOLISM?

1. Holism is a way of conceptualizing reality. With this view in mind, every time that we approach a fragment of reality, we consider it a whole, a universe, and we interact as a result.

The world “holism,” coined by Jan Smuts (South Africa) in 1926, comes from the Greek holos, totality. However, in the modern world, in the 19th century we spoke with this same sense of structures. In the 1920’s and 1930’s the terms system (von Bertalanffy in Germany) and functional system (Anokhin in Russia) arose.

In history, humanity began conceptualizing holistically. Then, a few centuries ago with the appearance of rationality as the driving force of human development, and its product, the present science, fragmentation acquired enormous importance. As a result, the focus became more based on the fragments of each reality than on the reality itself. From holism we passed to fragmentalism.

The latter undoubtedly represented a great advancement. Nevertheless, it brought along with it an unexpected sub-product: Many specialists in fragments of the reality considered their specialized areas the most important ones, and confused their well-researched fragments with the whole reality.

Thus, from fragmentalism we moved into specialization, an excellent step that was unfortunately tainted many times by this enormous difficulty: To believe that existing phenomena are those seen by the observer, with the only lens he or she has learned to hold in front of his or her eyes.

Holism seeks to go beyond this. The holistic vision considers the universe and its parts (each partial “universe,” therefore also each individual person) as a system whose individual elements interact among themselves. The observation of these interactions varies according to the point of view of the observer, according to his or her own lens.

2. A paradigm can be defined as a basic conceptualization underlying a group of knowledges that guide in an enduring way the development of that same group of knowledges (whether in science, art, pedagogy, economics, etc.). So we can speak of a holistic paradigm.

We maintain, then, that the holistic vision is a) systemic, b) dynamic, and c) transdimensional.

a. Systems are abstractions of the human mind that present two basic and defining premises: They constitute an irreducible breakthrough (it can not be reduced to its further elements, since the new entity would disappear if we fragment it) and they assume a certain unique time-space configuration (as these elements, if arranged in another configuration, would produce distinct characteristics).

These elements are portions grasped by each human mind, and each mind emphasizes various facets. But they are indivisible if one wants to preserve all their characteristics. So, a human can not be fragmentalized if we are to preserve what is human, a melody cannot be fragmentalized if we want to preserve the music, a molecule of water can not be fragmentalized if we want to preserve its “wateryness.”

A system can be understood as synonymous with holon, a unit that is at the same time a whole and a part: Simultaneously, a whole that contains and a fragment that is contained. A system is made up of elements; at the same time, a system is a constituent element of another greater system.

The influence exercised among the elements of a system and on the system itself is constant, as is the influence of the system on the elements. For example, consider a brick in a wall, a cell in tissue, a liquid in its container, a person in a family, a planet in a solar system.

And as the understanding of this system-compound reality leads us to the concept that there is a system which is finally comprehensive of all others, at a human level we find an irresolvable problem: If the system universe is comprehensive of all others, then there is nothing outside of it. It is a container that is not simultaneously contained. This mystery goes beyond us and opens to a spiritual dimension.

b. Living systems present an always fluctuating activity. They are functional systems. This constant change-inducing activity has always been studied with respect to the human being: From the chemical nature of metabolism to the psychodynamic aspect, all shows that humans are always and inevitably changing.

c.  Humans can be defined by taking into consideration various dimensions: I am a physical-molecular being, a biological being, an emotional being, a logical-cognitive-thinking being, a spiritual being. Each dimension has undergone extensive research.

But, in fact, I am all of these at the same time. The dimensional apportioning is produced by the one who observes me. The human being is a unique whole, fragmentalized only for the convenience of the observer, who in this way can grasp and comprehend what he or she sees. It is a system, always and simultaneously all this. I am all that, now and continuously. The observer fragments me in order to grasp me, according to his or her current life, history, and traditions.

I am transdimensional, and so is reality in general. Each fragment of that reality can be considered according to objective and subjective, i.e. social and cultural dimensions.

The study of the human being, then, must inevitably take into account three axes, present, history, and tradition, as also the simultaneity of those dimensions: For example, learning can not be biological or emotional or cognitive or spiritual, but must be all these simultaneously. It is the observer who decides how he or she will classify it.

The same can be said of disease: What does a diagnosis consist of?  Will we study and treat a single dimension or all together? How should we explain dyslexia, sadness, an ulcer, a laugh? The explanation he or she has given him or herself will inexorably depend on the observer´s logical path - that is, the approach (treatment) that he or she will choose.

The human being is a system of systems. The same can be said of a family or, even more comprehensively, of a culture. What should be taken into account in developing the diagnosis and treatment of a social group?

There is nothing human that could be considered purely, solely, as molecular or biological or emotional or cognitive or spiritual.

3. The human being is a constantly developing open system. He or she arrives in the world (is conceived) with basic needs, from which (dis)satisfaction basic feelings emerge, on which he or she will construct personal logics with which he will seek to grasp and understand reality. He or she brings to the world potentials that, upon being stimulated by the cultural context in which by chance he or she lives, produce a certain perceptual development. At every moment, the activity of each human being is a product of his or her terrain in continuous interaction with his context. This activity is constantly recorded within the individual and within the culture as perceptual maps of fragments interacting among them, thus modifying at every moment the comprehensive, universal, integral, representative map of the reality for every individual in particular.

Will we consequently study his or her needs / potentialities, feelings, thoughts, activity?  Or all these as a one?

4. In summary, the holistic paradigm assumes basically that

• Reality is organized in systems- holons, and so also the human being.

• The dynamic interaction among the elements within a system is constant and necessary, and so also within the human being.

• The human being has historically been described and interpreted simultaneously in terms of  different dimensions (physical-molecular, biological, emotional, cognitive, spiritual) by different observers with different lenses. But, in fact, the human being is a transdimensional system.

• The human being is constantly developing, from the moment of his or her own conception, from his or her own potentialities, and according to the supply of stimuli provided by the context.

• Thus, the human being is constantly mentally constructing a system of fragmentary maps in constant interaction, as a way of grasping and organizing reality, and finally forming an integral map of his or her reality.

A systemic-dynamic-transdimensional approach will inevitably have consequences for pedagogy, medicine, and social action.

5. Holism is an integral vision. It is not the same as an integrating vision: I am not someone that is formed by parts that have been combined. Integration begins as an analysis and tries to reach a synthesis.

I am integral. I am a synthesis. Those who interact with me (for example in pedagogy, medicine and social research and work), have to cut out fragments of me, analyze, in order to grasp me. But, they should not forget that I am a whole, and that their analysis is only a part of that synthesis.

Different Holisms

Certainly, the authors interested in holism have considered that different aspects are relevant. For example, we can read about

• An ontic holism (reality is unique, structured as a hierarchy): Wilber, Trungpa

• A methodological holism (the whole is more than the sum of parts): v. Bertalanffy, Haldane, Smuts, Meyer-Habich

• A spiritual holism (reality depends solely upon spiritual phenomena)

• A linguistic or semantic or mental holism (the meaning of the parts depends on the context: Kuhn, Churchland, Quine; perception goes beyond sensation, it is a contextual functional system: Wernicke)

• A flat or systemic holism (only objective, descriptive of the present, that does not include either development nor subjectivity)

• An epistemic or theory-of-knowledge holism (every theory constitutes a whole in itself)

• A physical holism (universal macro-holism versus quantum micro-holism)

What Holism is not

Many times the term “holism” is incorrectly used; therefore, it becomes necessary to establish clear lines of demarcation with other ideas.

Holism is not:

• A dogma: Rather, a holist is him or herself anti-dogmatic and open-minded.

• Anti-scientific: On the contrary, in human evolution we can differentiate between a first phase of reality observation that was pre-scientific, therefore universalizing, but without the power of analysis; and a scientific phase, included in the holistic concept, which exceeds an objectifying and analytical science, as objectivation and analysis do not take in account the contexts nor the dimensions of the human being. It is wrong to say that “it is holistic, therefore it is not scientific” or “I take an alternative approach, thus I am holistic.” Nothing could be more false. To toss aside scientific advances in the name of “intuitive” or “spiritual” approaches is as erroneous as aspiring to a “pure science” without taking into consideration emotional or spiritual considerations.

• An alternative medicine: When holism is applied to the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, it uses present knowledge coming from all fields.  It is just as fragmentary to have a physician entrenched in only biological concepts as when one prescribes herbal remedies while rejecting proven medical methods. A “holistic therapist” is only one who is trained and licensed as such, and is involved in a holistic vision of reality and of the human being. Unfortunately, too often those who have no formal studies shield themselves behind ideas that are not well-founded, in order to justify their boundless ambition to treat everything.

• Integrationalism: Holism studies a whole; integrationalism is a kind of goodness, simultaneously positive and delimiting, which seeks to accommodate the parts. Holism goes beyond efforts to reach integration, which many times are even indicated by the combination of words: psycho-neuro-endocrino-immunology, psychosomatic, neuro-psychology.

• A material approach (organicism): The purpose of holism is to grasp and understand reality as a unique whole. As a result, the materialism - spiritualism argumentation (as that of biologism - psychologism) losses its meaning.

• A sectarian spiritual approach: Quite to the contrary. The world “catholic,” for example, has the same etymology as “holism”: “kata” (in agreement with) and “holos” (unity, totality).

• An ideology: The systemic and comprehensive idea has been misrepresented by extremist positions, both from the right and the left, that have insisted that individual freedom is conditioned by the system (here meaning political system), when it is easy to understand the falsity of the argument re-reading from the beginning.

• A merging approach of all the diverse aspects of the human being in a pre-scientific manner.

Some closely related concepts:

• Psychoanalysis
• General System Theory
• Gestalt
• Bioenergetics
• Transpersonal therapy
• Genetic-Dynamic-Deep Approach
• Client- centered Therapy
• Goetheanism
• Anthroposophy
• Homeopathy
• Montessori Pedagogy

Antagonistic concepts:

• Fragmentalism: Every dimension has consequences only in itself (hermetic compartments); for example, medical biologism
• Dualism / Cartesianism
• Individualism, reductionism (the whole is the sum of parts, but all parts have to be considered)
• Integrationism
• Scientism, biologism, psychologism, positivism
• Geneticism (the organism is genetically determined)
• Sociologism / social holism / totalitarianism: The social whole is more than the sum of the social elements, and it determines by itself  the behavior of these elements
• Materialism / “realism”: All is explainable on the basis of the physical world
• Modularism: The mind has a modular structure, made up of autonomous functional systems.

Some names associated with Holism

This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only to provide examples of how much has been already done about this vision throughout the world. Some of the authors mentioned might not have considered themselves holistic, but have nonetheless contributed to this vision. Please write to us if you think that we have been unfair with someone.

Bateson, G. - von Bertalanffy, L. - Bohm, D. - Capra., F. - Ciompi, L. - Crema, R. - de Quirós, J. B. - Eccles, J. - Hahnemann - Huneuus, F. - Dossey, L. - Gang, Ph. - Ferguson, M. - Fox, M. - Grinberg, M., Grof, S. - Kuhn, T. - Leloup, J. - Lorimer, D. - Lovelock, J. - Lowen, A. - Luria, A. - Maslow, A. - Maturana, H. - Meister Eckhardt - Montessori, M. - Morin, E. - Nicolai, J. - Neill, A. S. - Orrego, H. - Paracelso - Perls, F. - Plotino - Pribram, K. - Prigogine, I. - Reca, T. - Rogers, C. - Schutz, W. - Sheldrake, R. - Smuts, J. - Speck, O. - Steiner, R. - Tart, Ch. - Trungpa, S. - Upledger, J. - Watts, A. - Weil, P. - Wilber, K.