By: Sophie Henry, Max Lorenze, Anna Tobin, and Summer Watkins,
Definition
Reductionism is the thinking that an idea, field of study, or specific issue can be broken down into smaller parts which are then looked at as depicting or describing the idea as a whole (Haverford College Introductory Psychology Fall, 2015). That is a general depiction of reductionism as it retains to the sciences, environmentalism, psychology, etc. The scientific depiction of reductionism holds that, “The long-dominant “reductionists”, who claim that the physical universe can be explained by breaking things into ever smaller parts (atoms, quarks, leptons, strings) and then putting them back together”(Bormann, Nov. 2015). Reductionism in environmentalism could be represented through the philosophies of combating climate change. A reductionist solution is getting each person does their small part to combat larger issue of climate change. Another reductionist solution would be breaking climate change into smaller areas of study and focusing in on one of those areas to solve the whole. Reductionism is also be the action of synthesizing complex or lengthy ecological studies or concepts, to make them short and more widely consumable. The modern relevance of reductionism to environmental scholarship is nearly universally in contrast and comparison with holism. The modern relevance of reductionism with environmentalism as a whole is much more complex with aspects of reductionism being totted as the primary method to examine climate change.
Context
Reductionism is often paired with the term holism, perhaps with the intent of encouraging scholars to approach an issue with two different perspectives.This idea would allow deeper analysis into both sides of an argument that is essential to gaining an opinion on the subject material. In one scholarly source edited by Federico Lenzerini and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, the concept of environmental expansionism is introduced as a method to replace reductionism. As proposed originally by Fred Bosselman and David Callies, “The proposed new approach should aim at reducing the tendency to perceive the natural environment as a commodity and try to restore a key role for the preservation of ecosystems as the right basis for a truly sustainable development.” (Lenzerini and Vrdoljak, 2014). This suggestion however, idealizes a global mentality that is ready to shift to the pure nature axis. Although proposing an idea of preservation and sustainability sounds like it would be widely accepted, a large portion of our population is and most likely, always will be, hung up on economic numbers and figures that would prevent them from joining the eco-bandwagon.
Reductionism is derived from a conceptual way of thinking that dates back to Ancient Greek philosophy. In this way, reductionism was seen as a way to categorize and organize thought, in order to come to a logical conclusion. Although the backbone of compartmentalizing and summarizing arguments or ideas was created long ago, its application to the environmental studies world is difficult to place in terms of its historical origin. Google Ngram Viewer suggests that environmental reductionism started as a concept in the early 1960’s. However, while conducting extensive research, there was not a singular event in history that led to the spark of environmental reductionism. Perhaps reductionism was an approach used by individuals that took part in the many environmentalist movements at the time that addressed anti-nuclear development, promotion of wildness, and concern of pollution. From the 1960’s on, there has been a great deal of fluctuation in the usage of environmental reductionism. Presently, organic resources are situated economically as a commodity and politically as a tool. It would make sense that both economists and politicians would have reductionist perspectives because they both share careers that depend on anthropocentric policies.
When trying to understand the context in which reductionism is used in environmental scholarship, it is important to acknowledge who is in favor of reductionism and who is not. In an article written by Richard Heinberg, the perspectives of reductionism and holism are compared with regard to the topic of climate change. Heinberg gives us a very telling statement about who exactly is supporting reductionism within the confines of environmentalism. He explains, “In general, then, reductionist thinking about climate change tends to lead to narrow, targeted strategies that will benefit centralized and powerful industries.” (Heinberg, 2016). As the big businesses of the world align their industry’s priorities with environmental policy discussions, it would seem that it would be to their benefit that (as mentioned previously) resources are allocated economically and politically. It is necessary that large industries conduct business in a way that both saves and makes them money in order to be successful. Heinberg claims, “…commercial “silver bullet” products rooted in a reductionist approach to solving problems can be quite profitable for industries and investors…” By researching who is pro-reductionism and who is not in terms of environmentally-related issues, we can fully understand the context with which it is used.
Critique
Using reductionism in environmental scholarship and scholarship has many flaws, and makes the work of scientists who use it less credible. “What are counted as errors here are not merely such mistakes as wrong referencing or incorrect formulas (which are given due attention by the critics), but also “errors” that are in fact field-specific conventions, methodological necessities, heuristic choices, or general problems in researching the biology of behavior.”(Segerstrale, Aug. 1992). In certain fields, reductionism can be considered an error. This particular example refers to sociobiology, but applies to environmentalism as well. The use of reductionism often leaves some detail to be desired in the method of the scientist, and its’ incomplete assessment of a large problem leaves room for error. In today’s political climate, there is tension between scientists and certain sectors of the public who aim to discredit science. The use of reductionism can be dangerous, especially in the context of environmental scholarship. Reductionism can make environmental scholarship easier to undermine. An example of this is the harsh critique of E.O. Wilson, where the Sociobiology Study group stated, “that he was, despite all, going to provisionally use existing formulas until better ones could be developed In order to fit the critics’ logic-in-operation, Wilson had to be dismissed as both a bad and old-fashioned scientist”(Segerstrale, Aug. 1992).
The use of reductionism in scholarly works can allow critics to easily discredit the author and his argument. “Big words” that simplify complex concepts can carry political bias, and don’t adequately describe complex issues. In environmental scholarship especially, it is crucial to consider all the details, which reductionist approaches can easily miss. “We run the risk of losing small parts of the problem and the interconnectedness of the situation as a whole.” (Haverford College Introductory Psychology Fall 2015).The problems we face in environmental studies are complex and intimidating. The urge to simplify these problems can lead to to practice reductionism. However, the problems in environmental studies are based in the interconnectedness of the earth, and the science is no longer credible when any piece is left out. It is difficult to make any kind of prediction about the future, and environmental and climate scientists often have to do to plake progress. Without considering every piece of the puzzle, potential future predictions are not valid.
Despite its flaws, there are necessary and productive ways to use reductionism in environmental scholarship,“being able to use reductionism in the world helps us to generalize things that need to be generalized in order to collect and analyze information about our environment such as “species diversity, global climate patterns, and ocean pH levels ”(Haverford College Introductory Psychology Fall 2015). The use of reductionism is beneficial because it can simplify complex issues and concepts, making them easier for the average citizen to understand and form opinions about these issues. Especially when discussing environmental policy, it is important to communicate scientific concepts with the public, so these issues can be addressed. While issues with reductionism discussed above still apply when using terms considered reductionist, it is generally the most effective way to communicate with the public
Conclusion
As seen from previous statements, reductionism is a complicated and often controversial tool when attempting to confront environmental topics. Reductionism is on the opposing side of the spectrum to holism, both of which are used a great deal in environmental sciences. Reductionism is the avenue of looking at specialized area of study instead of examining the larger topic holistically. According to Dr. Jim Proctor reductionism is the method of synthesizing a complex scientific study or concept to make it more widely available. Therefore, it would seem that reductionism is necessary in the scientific world. It certainly spans many different topics and is also used in psychology and economics.
When addressing climate change the topic can be seen as overwhelming due to the complexity of the issue along with its wide spread effects. Reductionism is used to create this topic more manageable by compartmentalizing the topics. In severe reductionism, it can be argued that all can be solved by fixing one factor, such as overpopulation. However, reductionism may be too simplistic and narrow minded. When environmental scholars argue about solutions, they can be accused of being reductionist. This would imply that there is a negative view of reductionism. Does this mean that it should be forgotten completely then? Not exactly, it appears that as with many topics, moderation is key. In the past, reductionism has been used solely as a philosophy to attempt to solve climate change. It has been used in direct conflict with holism. Moderation is key and can be depicted through, “Levins’ approach not only set scientists free from a false dilemma by promoting a dialectical position that harbored diverse methodological practices, but also demonstrated the fallacy of close systems of thought”(Lefkaditou 2006). However, we, along with many of the scholars we have cited, would argue that by using a combination of isms.
Climate change is incredibly complex, that is undeniable. It is human nature to Therefore, it would be unlikely and almost futile to find one solution for such a problem, this is why holism is argued as better. However, if we combine holism and reductionism together, we can break down areas within climate change for specific solutions creating an overall positive change. In some ways we already do this in academia, professors will specialize in studying pollution or biodiversity or even a region of the world. This in and of itself is reductionism. By working on specific areas, they are combatting the overall topic of climate change, thus holism.
Works Cited
Bormann, F.H., “End of Reductionism?.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, (Nov. 2005), 472. JSTOR. 22 Mar. 2017.
“Google Ngram Viewer.” Google Books. Accessed March 24, 2017. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=environmental%2Breductionism&year_start=1960&year_end=2017&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cenvironmental reductionism%3B%2Cc0.
Haverford College Introductory Psychology Fall “Reductionism.” Science Exposed 2015 22 Mar. 2017
Heinberg, Richard, “Climate Holism vs. Climate Reductionism.” Post Carb Institute, (Jan. 2016), n.p.
Lefkaditou, Ageliki and George P. Stamou, “Holism and Reductionism in Ecology: A Trivial Dichotomy and Levins’ Non-trivial Account.”History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2006), 313-336. JSTOR. 22 Mar. 2017.
Lenzerini, Federico and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak. International Law for Common Goods. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
Segerstrale, Ullica, “Reductionism, ‘Bad Science’, and politics: A critique of Anti-Reductionist Reasoning.” Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 11 No.2 (Aug. 1992) pp. 199-214. JSTOR 22 Mar. 2017
Swenson, Keith. “The Origin of Reductionism.” Thinking Matters, (2013).