Inclusional Research
Forum & Learning Space
MAIN MENU |
|
|
Karen Tesson writes:
Although holism avoids the problems associated with the classical reductionist approach, it is not without its own limitations. The classical worldview seeks to understand systems by taking them apart, while the holistic view seeks to understand systems by looking at them as functional wholes. One challenge presented by this holistic approach is that all systems are considered as wholes, and are irreducible. This means that there is little scope for the development of methodologies that determine what lies within a system. As Rayner argues (2003), holism can encourage a view where, since all things are considered to be related to one another, their boundaries are effectively assumed to be completely permeable, or indeed absent. Conceptually therefore, this absence of boundaries dissolves any distinction between inner and outer spatial contexts, all contents of the system become mixed together in a space-including, but undifferentiated “pea soup”. In such a view, context actually becomes the sum of all contents and there is no enveloping “outside”. Paradoxically, in such a holistic view, which is apparently deeply connected with ecology, there is no “environment”, no external surrounding: the system is completely self-contained as a “whole”. It might be suggested that this issue arises because holism redefines what a boundary actually is. For example Bateson, who was an early advocate of a holistic view (his particular viewpoint was framed in cybernetic terms), questioned the idea that boundaries are defined by their physical surfaces (Bateson, 1972). According to Bateson, one could seek to understand a system in terms of information flow, rather than of relationships between physically distinct parts. This he illustrates with an example of a blind man using a cane to navigate his way down a street. According to Bateson, if one only considers the flow of information in the system, the physical distinction between the blind man and his cane becomes irrelevant. Instead, the information flow between street, cane and man become the source of identity, and effectively they become one continuous system. Bateson further argues that boundaries could be defined by the behaviour one is trying to explain. So, if one is trying to explain how the blind man walks, one needs to consider the street, the man, the cane, and so on. When the man sits down to eat his lunch however, the cane and the street become irrelevant, as they play no part in explaining how he eats. This kind of holistic approach does, I believe share some similarities with a newly-emerging perspective, known as “Inclusionality theory”, which has been developed by Rayner and others (Rayner, 1997; 2002). Inclusionality contrasts with, whilst including elements of both the classical analytical and holistic approaches, yet it overcomes many of their inherent problems by looking at systems from an entirely novel perspective. The “Inclusional” view is one with which I strongly empathise, and much of my own research has been framed terms of Inclusionality theory. Part 7: Inclusionality Back to Table of Contents |
| Web design by Karen Tesson | Site accessed 65267 times since 15/10/07 |