Re: The Meaning of Holism L LO1723

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 20:20:05 +0000

Replying to LO1700 --

In Barry's comments on holism, I think we can see that the term may
contain its own downfall - at least in business useage. Part of that
downfall is that, while it is little understood, it's been around for a
long time. It will get a nod when used. But the nod will also be a
dismissal in most cases. "Of course!" they'll say, "But what can we do
with that?"

Barry asks if holism has anything to do with chaos. I don't enough to
answer that one. I would say that it has something to do with complexity.
A complex system is one which _is_ a whole which has emerged from the
interaction of agents or preceding elements. In that sense, it is
"greater than the sum of its parts".

However, it is not "greater" than the sum of its parts, its _different_
from its parts. There is no "summing" going on. And therein lies the
rub. By saying that something is "greater than the sum of its parts" we
are granting the presupposition of reductionism and we are implying -
because it can't be understood by reductionism - that something rather
mysterious is involved.

How about starting from the whole being/entity that we are interested in
and understanding it as emergent (on one hand) and an independently
existin entity (on the other) with no recourse to reductionist
"understanding" required.

We can then see organisations as whole and complete entities in their own
right with their own properties. That will give us a powerful new lense
through which to view organisations - a new interpretive approach.

I think that the "organism" metaphor has a great deal of power and is
worthy of grappling with. It is also important not to throw out the
machine metaphor. Each has its use.

--
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk